Let's bring down our whole rotten political system

While I'm interested in any Scottish solutions with regards to stopping an EU Brexit I think they are a distraction from the priority.  The Scottish dimension is not really about Europe it is about Independence.  For the Scottish Government see everything - absolutely everything - through the prism of Independence. For me the priority is for Britain to remain within or as close we can to the EU; and to be clear, for me, the EU has always been far more than just a free trade area.

There can't be a Second Referendum on the EU.  That would be undemocratic and we cannot call for one when we rightly call out Scot Nats for demanding Indyref2 barely two years after the first - and a clear decision to boot.

But referenda are not the only way. They are not even particularly good at deciding very technical issues like on the EU. And they are so final if the change option wins. This makes them inflexible and somewhat undemocratic in that sense. As a result of last week's EU referendum we have handed a blank cheque to I'm not entirely sure who, to do I'm not entirely sure what.

When we voted we had no idea what Leave would look like. There was no white paper, no model, no roadmap - nothing. And this is without addressing the apparent fact that two of the central claims of the winning Leave campaign appear to be ones that there was no intention, or knowingly no possibility, of delivering. That is to say paying '£350m a week into NHS' and ending free movement of people. This is also without addressing that some (not all) Leave voters were voting on misconceptions as evidenced by attitude surveys during the campaign.

I want us to stay in the EU or salvage the best we can out of our broken relationship with Europe and vote on it in the traditional way via a general election. That's perfectly democratic. Now this requires real Labour to have the balls to stand up for that. It also requires pro EU Conservatives to stop trying to hold power for power's sake. The pro EU ones are meant to be in the majority in parliament. This may all require pro EU candidates and groups to cooperate in a one-off pro-EU coupon election.

But failing all this I want the Labour Party to be strong again - they need to jettison their foolish People's Popular Front sect of malevolents and romantics. In the Conservatives I want to see the Brexiters and thinly veiled anti-Europeans (such as May) defeated and something constructive regarding Europe emerge. Most of all I feel we need outward looking British liberalism to start doing well across all the parties again.

Crucially, I want to see the Liberal Democrats, who have taken a far heavier electoral toll than they ever deserved, returning to strength.  We desperately need them in our political mix with a loud and vibrant voice.

These are turbulent times in British politics and all this may not be possible.  The stable of contenders for the Conservative leadership does not fill me with hope. Our continuing creaking democracy based on an 18th century system never designed for party politics let alone the multiple and changing choices we have today continues to depress me.  Not least when it begins to threaten our stability with embedded tribal loyalties and exaggerated regional differences with their ludicrous over representations.  This is an unresponsive democracy whose senses to real opinion are dulled, especially when they deliver absolute majorities on not much more than a third of the vote and on tiny shifts in support.

But there is many a twist and turn in the road ahead before we are done with these turbulent times.  Whatever happens I do not want to see a return to our political system as we have known it.  The realignment of the 1980s did not quite come off.  This time the fault lines of opinion have truly shifted.

This time I want to see real realignment and with it an end to our whole rotten political system.

Why an EU Ref makes a Yes Indyref vote even less likely

I love polls.  And I love the study of psephology - try saying that just after you have had your wisdom teeth out!  Most of all I love the detail revealed in the full tables of data behind the polls - the trends, the regional variations and the balance across age groups.

It is with this interest that I read the latest Panelbase Poll on Scotland and Scottish Independence.  It shows the following:

44% No, 36% Yes, 20% Don't know. (sample 1004, survey May 10-16)

Interestingly IPSOS Mori showed:

59 % No, 31% Yes, 10% Don't know (sample 1001, survey April 29- May 5)

The first showed a small drop in the No vote, the second showed a drop in the Yes vote.

Hmmmm - a little contradictory in terms of how big the No vote is and how many undecideds there are.  We shall see how other polls measure this and how the trends go.

My own view is this; the Yes camp has been stuck on around a third for a while and this matches pretty much the level of support Independence has had in Scotland since the 1970s give or take a couple of blips around devolution being introduced, Alex Salmond winning a majority in Holyrood and the introduction of the poll tax over 20 years ago.

Yes seem to be losing.  The Heather has failed to catch light.  And while millions moved in the streets of Barcelona, the Catalan capital, for their national movement, Scotland's just about filled the Ross Bandstand in Princes Street Gardens.

Yes seem increasingly on the backfoot under close scrutiny on the currency and several aspects of the consequences for pensions - both public sector and private.  Fissures have been appearing between the SNP on one hand who want to keep the Pound, the Queen and the Bank of England as well as shared financial regulation (funny independence that - may as well keep some political union if that's the game!); and on the other hand, the hard left who support a more recognisable independence complete with Scotland's own currency, a republic and withdrawal from NATO.

Other aspects of the movement's vision appeared to be wearing thin.  Strike out for freedom and let 1,000 flowers to bloom.  We could be a Nordic paradise free from Westminster austerity and injustice.

Is this from the SNP whose tax cutting agenda (Community Charge freeze, Corporation Tax, Air Passenger Duty and VAT) promises to deliver a social justice nirvana at the same time?  Or is it with a hard left agenda that presumably will bring with it high unemployment, accelerating economic decline and nothing but social justice disappointments?

It doesn't really add up does it?

But one thing could change the direction of this debate - Europe.

As the Conservatives set about trying to destroy themselves once more over Europe, an In/Out referendum for Britain in Europe looms large and exiting the EU a real possibility.  Note what today's Panelbase poll says:

If the UK is going to leave he EU the vote on Scottish Independence becomes:

44% No, 44% Yes, 12% undecided.  A dead heat!

The EU shenanigans may be about to open the field up again for the Scottish Independence Referendum.

I have just one set of thoughts I wanted to put down about this today.  That this is the electorate's gut reaction of the last few days as this issue has exploded onto the scene once more.  It is not yet a considered view in the light of analysis and discussion of the pros and cons of the various options.  Simplistically I believe the various options line up like this for a would be independent Scotland:

Scotland in EU, Rest of UK in EU
As you were, the Independence debate is framed as it was.

Scotland in EU, Rest of UK out of EU
Nightmare.  This is a nightmare for the single market that we hitherto shared with England.  The currency, financial regulation, and the operation of all sorts of cross border institutions become an even bigger problem. And what of Schengen and border controls in this sceanario. Nightmare.

Scotland out of EU, Rest of UK out of EU
Even bigger nightmare.  Not in the UK, not in the EU, small and on the fringes of Europe, and dealing with tariffs and a regulatory environment from the outside.

It actually strikes me that if the rest of the UK leaves Europe, which I think it would be mad to do, Scotland may well be better remaining part of that UK.

Another alternative may be to share a regulatory and monetary environment with the rest of the UK - both outside the EU, but that is not really independence is it.  Again, we might as well have a democratic political say in such a union if that is to be the case.

(And yes I know you could have Scotland out of Europe and the rest of the UK in but I think that is unlikely and if it were to come to pass I don't see that scenario as being too clever either).

Which all goes to show that as we consider what all this means, I think uncertainty over Europe actually makes a Yes vote for Scottish Independence even more unlikely!!

These are my initial thoughts.  I await developments and further analysis with interest.  And more polling too!       

  

That was quite a speech Dave

Well that was quite a speech Mr Cameron.  I guess it will take a few days for me to fully absorb what I think it all means for the future but some things strike me straight away.

On Twitter I asked whether it was Cameron's '95 Theses on the Reformation of Europe' (with thanks to Archbishop Cramner) or was it purely about Tory electoral prospects?  I think the truth is it is rather more about Tory electoral prospects and outflanking the UKIP.

Interestingly, Lord Ashcroft - the Tory benefactor, pollster and strategist - points out that when they talk about Europe they lose.  Well, we'll see, but I do think their position will unravel somewhat and its still all about the economy stupid!

I think the Conservative's position will unravel because we have no idea exactly what powers Cameron would like to repatriate or the consequences.  There is in some quarters a view that Europe takes over and tells us what to do but only 6.8% of UK primary legislation and 14.1% of secondary legislation has anything to do with implementing EU obligations  - and these are not EU diktats but policy that is agreed to, approved of and signed off by UK officials.

The fact is Euro-scepticism plays to an idea of Europe that "we are with Europe but not of it" to quote Churchill.

One of the really interesting things today was that if you substituted the word Scotland for the words 'Britain' or 'United Kingdom' it could have been Alex Salmond talking.  In fact the Scottish nationalist community has been quite taken with the irony of the whole thing and what Cameron is saying about the pros and cons of holding an EU referendum!  But this should not surprise us because both the Conservatives and SNP are nationalists.

The other question I posed on Twitter was 'what effect will this have on the Scottish independence referendum?'   

That remains to be seen but while there are some huge ironies in hearing David Cameron sound like Alex Salmond, I don't think it changes the fundamentals of the debate very much.  In fact, I believe this makes the case for Scottish independence still weaker.

In 2012 there was much debate about whether an independent Scotland could remain automatically within the EU.  While the process and basis for a separate Scotland becoming a member state are unclear there is little doubt we would take our place.  However, the possibility that you could have an independent Scotland within the EU and England & Wales outside the EU is not a good proposition.  Where would this leave the currency? This would not be a good place for Scotland's main market and trading partner to be, and what of the Schengen agreement on borders?

The fact is that to be a viable proposition Scotland needs to be part of the EU.  While I am a strong supporter of the EU, the rest of the UK does not need the EU as much as an independent Scotland would.  And, as I said, the prospect of our main market being on the different side of the EU's borders is something of a nightmare scenario - and it wouldn't do much for the 'social union' either.

I have argued before that our interests are best served by British unity, collective interests abroad like the EU and decentralisation at home.

The commentator David Torrance said something this morning I thought may yet prove to be quite significant.  He said, "PM's position vis-vis EU is basically devo-max for the UK.  And if that doesn't work , then he wants independence."  Yes, David Cameron is arguing for a looser connection with Europe but to remain inside none the less.  In this I sense the possibility of a changing view in England to the British constitution.  The parallels between the EU debate and the constitutional argument will not be lost on everyone.  The awareness of English nationalism, the value of regional autonomy and how these things can exist within something bigger is growing.  The fact that the Scots seem to be largely opposed to independence but want strong devolution within the UK is also becoming increasingly clear.  All these things add up to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, something that was unthinkable a few years ago could soon be thinkable. That is that people in England may come to accept a federal solution for the UK is a good thing.

This is important because today another poll put support for independence below 30% and the numbers supporting increased devolution much higher.

If independence is voted down in 2014 we can get on and take the devolution settlement further.  We can start to work towards making devolution part of a wider decentralised settlement in the UK.  How this develops is the more important question - not independence!

Meanwhile the European question remains and I fear David Cameron has opened a Pandora's Box.  I'm not at all sure where we are headed but I'm not sure he knows either!  My best guess is we won't hold this referendum for I don't believe the Tories will win the next election.  But, If we do hold a referendum I think we'll vote to stay in - by the skin of our teeth.  I can only hope that the re-engineering of Europe, because that will happen in the next few years whatever course we take, is one that benefits us all.             

 

What should the LibDems do next? What does the data tell us?

The last year has been terrible for the LibDems.  Their brand, based on realignment of the left and carefully constructed for over half a century, has had a coach and horses driven through it.  Their poll ratings are disastrous – even accounting for a recent turnaround from absolute rock bottom.  They have a mountain to climb to save seats with a less than favourable economic backdrop, and the result of going into coalition has exceeded even the most miserable of worst case scenarios.

Perhaps worst of all there has been a complete loss of trust, pulling the rug of credibility from under them and seeming to undermine everything they say or do to try to make it better!

What should the Liberal Democrats do - the data says... ?

Evidence based solutions is something of a buzz phrase these days for everything from scientific study, to corporate strategising.  In this regard therefore Lord Ashcroft’s polling of marginal Conservative constituencies is extremely interesting. (As was his analysis in December of the LibDem vote).  A number of blogs have covered the results in detail.  See Mark Pack, UKpolling report, Solutions Focused Politics and Solutions Focused Politics again.

These results tell us the following:

• 41% of voters in LibDem target seats say they share their values (it’s even 33% in other seats).  This is a very high number – more than the other parties in LibDem target seats. 42% also felt the LibDems were on the side of ordinary voters (more than for any other party albeit just ahead of Labour)

• Only 32% say the LibDems are clear about what they stand for, in their target seats.   It is 28% in other seats.  These numbers are lower than for the other parties.

• A derisory 24% say the LibDems will do what they say, the number falls to 21% in non target seats.  The other parties have low numbers on this category too – but more than the LibDems.

Also, looking at LibDem targets, on a whole host of issues the LibDems could only struggle into the teens for those who think they would do the best dealing with the given issue - except for the environment where they score highly.

What issues are considered important remains very similar across Tory, Labour and LibDem held seats.  Education, the Environment and dealing with the deficit come up slightly more important in LibDem areas than other seats.  Crime and Immigration come out as slightly less important than the norm in LibDem areas.

So what should the LibDems do?

In order to recover the Liberal Democrats need to be much better at defining precisely who they are and what they want to do, and communicating that effectively.

Everything comes from that.  General ideas of fairness will not do.  General ideas of listening to the public and then working to deliver their needs sounds laudable but ultimately is more confusing; that is casework which is very important but should not be mixed up with a political credo.  It is very important for the Liberal Democrats to get this right as this is at the heart of their problems.

Secondly, there is a need for delivery.  A number of substantive things need delivered that make a difference to men and women's lives.  Civil liberties and constitutional reform are important but they should be treated as a ring fenced area.  The key issues are the ones that make life better.  If the LibDems succeed in implementing good policy in these areas - and being perceived as having delivered - then that outweighs things they have not done - such as on tuition fees in England and Wales and in failing to prevent a rise in VAT.  This is the only route back to credibility and re-establishing trust.

Delivery needs to come with it some sort of vision, an analysis of where they find themselves, some sort of story or narrative of what is wrong and how this can be put right.  This ties the two key ingredients of core principles and doing what they say together.

This, if they can begin to deliver, could pay dividends as there is a pool of potential belief in the Liberal Democrats out there as shown by the numbers of people who still feel they share their values or they are basically on their side.

Other interesting things we have learned

• We have also learned from Lord Ashcroft that a significant number of voters seriously considered voting LibDem in 2010 but decided not to.

• The main reason for deciding not to was because they felt the LibDems could have no influence and were a wasted vote. 

• Two thirds of these people think the LibDems are making an important contribution to government.

• Nearly all LibDem voters felt Labour seriously lost their way in government.  The poor showing of Labour in Scotland - once a General Election against the Tories was removed from the equation - and difficult poll ratings for Ed Milliband, suggest that while Labour may be doing reasonably well in the face of the government's austerity plans they have not yet sealed the deal for themselves with the British public. 

• Many 2010 LibDem voters will not decide for some time how they will vote for a General election and do not rule out going back to the LibDems.

• The polling in Conservative/LibDem marginals at least is consistent with between election polling in previous electoral cycles 

What does this all mean?

In Conservative held seats at least, there is a pool of voters who have considered supporting the LibDems before, believe they share their values and think they are making a contribution in government whereas before they felt they were a wasted vote.  If the LibDems can develop a coherent narrative as to who they are and if they start to be seen to deliver worthwhile things, some of these people will vote for them.

When you consider the LibDems are not that far behind in Conservative marginals, and certainly no worse than in previous electoral cycles, there is hope behind their low polling numbers - the data tells us so.

We have been here before 

Because we have been here before.  After the successes of 1974 and assorted by-election victories the Liberals fell back towards the end of the 70s and the big parties were eager to write them off.  I remember listening to Clive Jenkins, the crusty old trade unionist, on the radio on some local election night late in the 1970s, saying the Liberals results were patchy - which meant bad.  This, he argued was a good thing because they were a distraction from the real political argument.

After the Alliance ended and the Owenite SDP rump refused to join the merged party, poll ratings collapsed to lower than they are now and the 1989 Euro elections were a disaster.  Again commentators were very quick to write off the LibDems.

Their opponents are so condescending but fail to understand the resilience and depth of their position.

I felt then, in the late 1980s that the LibDems would be alright because there was a 'market' demand to vote for a decent centrist party.  This time I have not been so sure.  The trust and credibility thing feels ominous to me - and the damage feels particularly severe in Scotland where an Alex Salmond lead SNP are resurgent and occupy the centre ground.  However, this data tells me there is still a market demand as there was before.  It may be that some of the cities of northern England where we had made inroads against Labour are lost for at least this electoral cycle.  Scotland may also be more of a challenge for a period.

Nevertheless, even in Scotland, there is hope and the Ashcroft data shows that there is potential for LibDem growth if they can get their core values right, deliver something substantive in government and communicate it effectively.

The data says there is hope!

Are the Conservatives Eloi or Morlocks?

It’s not really a question I’ve ever asked myself before to be honest. But, do you remember the HG Wells novel ‘The Time Machine’ – or perhaps you have seen the rather good film version of it?

Well, if you haven’t or you can’t remember the plot ...

Wells’ Time Traveller journeys far into the future where he meets the Eloi, childlike adults who live in futuristic yet slowly deteriorating buildings, doing no work and lacking any curiosity or discipline. He also encounters the Morlocks who are ape like troglodytes who live underground amongst the machinery and industry that makes the above-ground ‘paradise’ possible. More sinister the Traveller learns the Morlock feed on the Eloi.

They are two tribes into which man has evolved. They now fulfil an almost ritualistic role based on something that happened in the nuclear wars of the dim and distant past but is now forgotten. They have both lost the intelligence and character of Man at its peak.

So it is with the Conservatives in Scotland sometimes I think. They are evil and socially unacceptable, this is a given. To support them in an election is not allowed. The need to marginalise them is paramount and the first rule of Scottish politics is to vote tactically to ensure they achieve no representation. To ally yourself with them in any way attracts instant vilification and ensures the perpetrator is too cast out into darkness. So the Scottish Liberal Democrats have discovered over the last year.

We have maybe forgotten precisely why this is the case – or if we remember we soon will have forgotten.

At this point in time the Conservatives in Scotland have just kicked off their leadership campaign. At the time of writing it looks like a close contest between Ruth Davidson and Murdo Fraser. Ruth was meant to be the young fresh faced, counter intuitive Tory who would modernise them. She has been slightly outflanked by Murdo who has proposed that they become independent of the party down south, change their name and embrace a more hard core version of devolution than ever before.

Kenny Farquharson writes very interestingly about this in Scotland on Sunday today where he suggests if the Tories vote for Ruth or one of the others, then Scotland will be Independent by 2016. If they vote for Murdo, Scotland will remain part of the UK. I have no idea if he is right or wrong.

The Conservatives clearly need to change their brand and their perception in Scotland. I also think they need to do something so that more Scots can relate to them and vice versa – you only have to look at a gaggle of Tories on Newsnicht to see what I mean. This is partly image and partly their policies and outlook on life – both need to change. However, to be a hated tribe for memories buried deep in folk memory is not healthy.

Firstly, there is a place for the case to be made for low taxes and small government, for a socially conservative vision of society and family, and for respect and value in some of our institutions. They will also argue for certain right wing economic theories or perhaps the case against Europe.

I have never been a Conservative and don’t expect to ever be one, but these are all legitimate positions and in a healthy and effective democracy someone needs to argue the case for these ideas.

Secondly, in a political system based on pluralism as ours is in Scotland much more so than in England, we need to be tolerant and understanding of the politics of coalition. It is a reality in council chambers up and down the land, it is more than likely as the outcome of a Holyrood election, and even at Westminster our current electoral system is more likely to bring about coalitions than before. This means that the Conservatives may need to play their role in one and we need political debate that is more adult and less tribal as a consequence.

Interestingly, there was almost a command and supply relationship between the SNP and the Conservatives after 2007. But this was a relationship that dared not speak its name. It’s time to allow the Conservatives out of the closet.

Finally, I have noticed that some Nationalists argue they want to defeat poverty and bring about social justice in the modern Scotland - but the only way this can be done is in an Independent Scotland. How can this be so? The reason it can be so is that England keeps on imposing alien Conservative regimes on Scotland who are against such left of centre agendas. Indeed, making sure we do not have a Conservative regime enforced on us period, is a key driver for having Independence.

This strikes me as most unhealthy reasoning. There is absolutely no reason why we should not achieve these laudable aims as part of the UK. This reasoning is getting dangerously close to a basic anti-English sentiment which never lies far beneath the surface with some nationalists. This reasoning also exposes that everything the nationalists argue must be seen through the prism of achieving Independence. This is their raison d’etre. Everything is capable of being manipulated to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK so the Scots turn to Independence.

Now, perhaps more than at any other time, political conditions are near perfect for Nationalists. A different party in charge north and south of the border; a party that they can present as universally bad as well as alien; and they are in alliance with the LibDems off and gain enough votes to match or even overhaul Labour.

This alliance is nothing of course to do with two parties taking responsibility to form a government when none was chosen, and taking responsibility to deal with the unprecedented set of circumstances in front of them! This of course makes no serious or reasonable attempt to understand the things the LibDems bring to government and the things they may temper in the Tories.

No, the arguments are tribal, and the Tories have to play the role of an exiled tribe like the Eloi and the Morlocks.

This is all good politics – just as long as voters realise that this is what is going on. However, it is bad for reasoned debate or any serious attempt to get to grips with our problems and work out solutions in a dangerous and difficult world.

s

Nick Clegg - grace and resilience under presssure

The Cleggster visited Edinburgh yesterday and I was lucky enough to get a chance to hear him speak.

He started by saying that it has been a tough time for the LibDems since entering coalition government with the Conservatives.  And it has been tough nowhere more than Scotland.

With this in mind it was interesting to see what Clegg had to say and what reception he got from Scottish LibDems.

He got a laugh when he pointed out that the universally inoffensive party has become universally offensive.

Nick said he had often asked himself, "could I have done something different, should I have done something different?"

He concluded no! He pointed out that there were parts of Britain where there was an intense and profound enmity towards the Conservative Party and the LibDem business arrangement with them in this parliament was a real turn-off to voters.  This was true in Scotland but also in wales and may parts of northern England.

The same would be true in reverse with any alliance with the Labour party.  The real tribal hatred of Labour and socialism was deeply ingrained across large swathes of the south of England and parts of the midlands.

Peacetime coalition was a really mind blowing concept for many in our highly polarised political system.

And the LibDems face bile daily from certain newspapers who used to ignore or patronise the LibDems. "We’ve messed up the mental map of both the Guardian and the Daily Mail," he said.

The subtext for the hour Clegg spoke and took questions soon developed.  It was firstly the need to show grace and resilience under pressure; and secondly the need to connect with the day to to day concerns of men and women and not get carried away by political hobby horses.


It was important to remember that everything the LibDems will achieve has to be in coalition with others with just 8% of the MPs in the House of Commons.  "After all we did not win the General Election."  There has to be compromise and pragmatism to get things done.  But Nick has always been an advocate of working with others and pluralism to achieve benefits for the people.

There were some who ranted seeing every compromise as a betrayal but this was not realistic and was often tribal posturing by those stuck in that polarised model of the political process.


Nick argued passionately it was about having a focus on what difference we make to peoples' lives.

The coalition and the cuts

He also reminded the audience that the coalition was formed in the midst of an economic emergency.  We had to start to deal with the deficit because if, as a country, we could not remain masters of our own destiny then very quickly we would have found ourselves subject to enormous uncontrollable international forces that could threaten to destroy our economy.

That was why it was so important to start the programme for government by dealing with the deficit.

There was an argument going around that there was an agenda of public sector cuts being promoted by a right wing ideological faction in government.

He reminded us that the alternative Labour plan involved £14bn of cuts, compared with the coalition plan of £16bn!!  And that the proposed spending cuts would take public sector spending down to 41% of GDP and this was still 5% more than when Tony Blair took over as PM!

On the economic question Nick Clegg was at his most impressive when talking about what he saw as the complete collapse of the way we have been running the UK economy since the mid 1980s.  As an idealised view of financial services relying on city as an engine of growth; complete with very high levels of both government and private debt.

This created an illusion of prosperity.  There is a need now, he argues, to develop a new vision for what the new economy looks like based on green sustainable industries and producing goods and services for which there is a demand.

Rebuilding trust

Someone pointed out to Nick that "we’ve lost the trust of the people" and asked, "how can we rebuild that trust?"

Clegg was very realistic in his answer

1. We can't reconstruct trust overnight

2. We need to explain why we have done what we have done

3. We need to explain what we are trying to do for long term benefit of society and the economy.

4.  We need to deliver on the four priorities the LibDems set at the General Election in 2010.

5.  In this way people can understand the overall purpose of what we are trying to do.


What did he feel the LibDems had delivered in government?

Nick showed confidence and self belief and a wide grasp of his brief.

Firstly, in terms of the four key LibDem priorities he picked out what was being delivered on:

• Fair taxes that put money back in your pocket. - the raising of the tax threshold to benefit the lower paid
• A fair chance for every child. - which in England and Wales has meant targeted resources to nursery education and the pupil premium
• A fair future, creating jobs by making Britain greener. - this has seen enormous progress, the 'Green Deal' which is intended to revolutionise the energy efficiency of British properties and the commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 30%, and our input into the Cancun conference. 
• A fair deal for you from politicians - the agenda of reform including the House of Lords and role of MPs. 

Secondly, look out for how the Green agenda develops and we take tax reform forward and some important developments to take banking reform forward.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly to Nick Clegg I felt, he picked out three key achievements

• We have 1/4 million more apprenticeships than under Labour - thanks to Vince Cable
• We have restored the earnings link with pensions thanks to Steve Webb
• We have started to reform the income tax threshold.

Indeed Nick picked out Steve Webb, the pensions minister, as an expert in the field who has been winning praise from all sides for what he is doing with pensions!

On Scotland

Nick was effusive in his praise for Willie Rennie, the Scottish LibDem leader.

As well as praising his energy he noted Willie was a brilliant example of the graceful resilience he called for.

Nick said the thing that Willie was doing particularly well in this regard was not to rant, or to be negative but to keep asking questions of the Nationalist administration at Holyrood.  Question how things will work, how they will be implemented, how much they will cost and where the money will come from?

Already there was a sense that when Alex Salmond climbed down from wrapping himself in the Saltire and engaged in the detail of substantive questions that made a difference to men and women there were gaps.  Particularly, in this term there is a need to move the focus away from constitutional questions that delight political obsessives and towards what it will mean for ordinary men and women of Scotland.

A note of optimism

Nick struck a note of optimism towards the end of his talk.

Membership has begun to rise again, albeit slowly.  The LibDems were beginning to win local by-elections again in some parts of the country.  The opinion polls are seeing a slight uplift.

More people are saying quietly on the doorstep that the LibDems are doing the right thing.  Not always of course - there is hostility in a way the LibDems have not been used to but there is an improvement in the air.

The significance of this was that Nick felt some LibDems have been left shell shocked by a tough year but it was time to get back on the front foot.  There would be challenges but there were more open ears than perhaps many realised - to someone who communicates what they are doing and why with grace and resilience.

LibDems get a kicking

The LibDems took a kicking in a council by-election in Edinburgh yesterday.  LibDems taking a kicking in Scotland?  No change there then!  But this election was interesting for a number of reasons.

• First it was an STV election so we see how the second preferences redistributed.
• Second the ward was basically a 5 way dead heat last time!  
• Third the LibDems are in power with the SNP in the city
• Fourth the ward is right in the heart of the controversial Edinburgh Trams project and there was an anti trams independent.

Background

The by-election in Central ward was caused by an SNP councillor resigning as he is going abroad to work.

There was a strong Conservative candidate who fought the election for Holyrood in May.  There was a feisty and high profile Independent fighting on the red hot issue of the Trams.  Going on second hand reports from the hustings there was a weak SNP candidate who should have been favourite.  Again, from second hand reports the Green, LibDem and Labour candidates all had their strengths and weaknesses and showed promise – the LibDem and Greens were first time candidates I believe.

• The LibDems, Conservatives and Labour have all supported the Trams.
• The Independent is anti-tram.
• The SNP have positioned themselves as anti-tram though, as part of the administration, have voted for it but they distance themselves from decisions and the running of the transport brief.  

The basic numbers are these:

Last time

SNP 20%, Con 20%, LD 20%, Lab 18%, Green 17%

This time - First preferences

Con 837 (24%) SNP 797 (23%) Lab 682 (20%) Green 494 (14%) Independent 394 (9%) LD 251 (7%)

Second stage

LibDem votes then redistributed largely to the Tory and to the Green

LD Redistribution

67 to the Tory, 28 to SNP, 34 to Labour, 82 to the Green

Giving

Con 904, SNP 825, Lab 716, Green 576, Ind 402

Third stage

The Independent votes then redistributed to the Tory but with healthy numbers to the SNP and Green too.

Ind redistribution

139 to the Tory, 68 to SNP, 29 to Labour, 59 to Green

Giving

Con 1043, SNP 893, Lab 745, Green 635

Fourth stage

More Greens transferred to Labour than SNP

Green redistribution

67 to Tory, 188 to SNP, 223 to Labour

Giving

Con 1110, SNP 1081, Lab 968

Fifth stage

More Labour votes transfer to SNP but a surprisingly high amount go to the Tory.

Labour redistribution

154 to Tory, 287 to SNP  

SNP 1368, Con 1264

SNP Hold

Assessment

A strong showing by the Tories, but with a good, known candidate.  Alright for the SNP and Labour advancing on 2007, but Labour should be disappointed they cannot do better.  The SNP nearly lost what should have been an easy win, but a stronger candidate would probably do better.  A poor result for the Greens and a disastrous one for the LibDems where they are being crushed between the rocks of the Coalition, the Trams and an unpopular council.  And will there be any anti-tram independents across the city next May?    

(Numbers sourced from @BritainVotes live feed)

Who are the SNP?

So the SNP seem to have the big mo in the Scottish election.  I'll confess right now that the SNP have always puzzled me.  Oh, I understand that if you are a believer in an Independent Scotland then the Scot Nats are for you, but what is the point of them beyond that, and who is supporting them and why?

This is my personal view of at least part of the answer to that question.

Something seems to be afoot! I can smell it in the air Charlie! I'm based in Edinburgh Pentlands - for long a bit of a Con-Lab marginal. Could it be that the SNP overtake them both on the inside lane? I have had 4 SNP leaflets delivered by hand (ie not freepost leaflets) - that has never happened before! That is more than from either Labour or Tory!  True Pentlands is interesting - the SNP were third but got a healthy enough vote.  In the 80s Keith Smith made it a 3 way marginal for the SDP Alliance.  This means to me, that if they can get organised there is scope for a third party - whether SNP or LibDem to do well in my seat and even take it!

But the SNP doing well in Edinburgh! Never really seen that before - although, on the back of the last Holyrood election, they showed signs of flickering into life. Edinburgh has seen a really strong Liberal Democrat vote before! At times it has seemed to me, in some rural and suburban parts, the Liberal Democrat vote and SNP vote seems interchangeable to some extent!  Certainly with our four party system - five if you count the Greens - Scottish voters are highly tactical.  Scots voters link up to keep Conservatives out! Scottish voters get behind whoever they think will do best for Scotland at different elections.

Hence the SNP do well at Holyrood elections and poorly at Westminster elections - kinda the other way around for the LibDems.


Certainly, as a LibDem, I feel the SNP at this election sound like a tartan SDP at times.  The emphasis on the environment, a positive outlook on Europe, a pragmatic centre left agenda - free from Labour dogma and grand-standing.  Apart from the discreet Independence bit, it could so easily be a Liberal Democrat agenda. 

However, slightly different people seem to support the SNP and they seem able to have a more broad appeal across Scotland than the Liberal Democrats.  They do well in traditional Labour areas and the west of Scotland - AND in rural and suburban areas too.


Someone once said to me the old tribal certainties are breaking down as the generations move on.  Fewer and fewer people are Labour or Conservative as a birth-right.  As we all become just a little middle class, so the SNP and the Liberal Democrats (and the Greens) do well, more often in Scotland.

If things really work out for the SNP and they achieve Independence at some point, what then for the SNP? Will Scotland settle into a politics based on Lab V SNP? This could be a little like FG v FF in Eire! I'm not at all sure if I want to see that emerge!!!

Nevertheless, I am struck that the SNP are very very professional nowadays in their integrated campaigning! They seem to have lots of bright young staffers too! They used to be rubbish at the ground war and targeting seats but this too may be changing!

The SNP have their dander up and no doubt workers are coming outta the woodwork! They have the big mo and that is coming through in the polls!

After four years of government in Scotland the fear factor of the SNP has gone and they seem broadly competent, and they have Alex!  Labour on the other hand are dull and predictable and oh so utterly uninspiring! Nor do the Labour Party have anyone to kick, like Tories, either!

This all adds up to help explain why Labour are going to do badly after doing so well in Scotland a year ago and doing well UK-wide just now! (though scratch the surface and there are still questions the electorate north and south of the border ask of Labour!)

The SNP charge also seems to be coming at the expense of Tory and Lib Dem voters who appear to be voting tactically for Salmond or tactically against Labour winning, says Jeff Breslin at Better Nation.

I saw some recent polling suggesting where SNP second preferences would go.  It seemed to split 50% left (Lab and SSP) 30% centre or centre left (LibDem and Green) and 10% right (Tory) with 10% unclassified.


According to Scottish Vote Compass, comparing the policies and philosophies of the parties, the Liberal Democrats and SNP and, on some issues, the Greens are all quite close.


So what have we?  We live in more politically volatile times where the electorate is more fluid and less tribal than in years gone by.  We see this in the tactical way the Scottish electorate votes at different elections. 

The SNP have money, some clever political operatives and they have Alex Salmond!


From my point of view, as a Liberal Democrat, the Coalition and the public sector cuts that have to be delivered, will harm us at this election.  In addition, association with the Conservatives remains toxic.  Whether we start to re-connect and people remember why they like us, or whether this a hurting that will last a generation, only time will tell.

In a four or five party system sometimes a party is drowned out at an election however it campaigns.  This is where the LibDems are finding themselves at the moment.

SNP doing well at this election.  However, I wouldn't want to see them do too well! 

I think if they sweep to power on the sentiment as it stands this Easter weekend, they would get their referendum this time.  I think only a third of the Scottish electorate, at most, have an interest in Independence - and not all the SNP's voters!!  But if there is a wave of warm feelings to the SNP this could yet become a close run thing. I don't personally believe Independence would be a good thing or the right thing for Scotland and the UK.  I, as a LibDem, take the view that a good dose of devolved and decentralised power within the UK is the naural settlement for the UK and for Scotland - and it is the one I want.


I am also cautious about how realistic the SNP's positions are.  They want council tax freezes and free prescriptions etc etc.  Cuts are on the way to what the SNP have to spend and I don't think their programme is entirely viable.

We don't want all the votes to go to the SNP, away from Labour.  At this election, I think it is important that the LibDems maintain a viable group at Holyrood!

Despite being crowded out I still think they have put together a good programme and a good campaign.

• A costed programme based on re-generation and jobs creation aimed at creating 100,000 jobs, 
• Supported by regional development banks to provide investment where the commercial banks can't.
• Abolishing the Council Tax for pensioners on less than £10,000.
• Introducing a pupil premium to ensure that kids from poorer backgrounds don't lose out at school 
• Keeping the free higher education, which the LibDems won in 1999 in Scotland!! 
• Investment in science and plans for getting superfast broadband out there to all of Scotland - to make Scotland the most connected country in Europe 
• Opposing any political power grab to the centre, especially a single Scottish police force.

This programme has been well received by analysts and independent commentators looking at the underlying costings and figures.


So we need plenty of LibDems in the parliament.  We don't want Lab v SNP to be like Fine Gael v Fine Fail in Ireland, where politics has not properly grown up post civil war and the parties do not compete enough on the politics of ideas.

Dare I say it, there is a place in Scotland for something on the right, but I do wish the Scots Tories did not sometimes look like Cameron and Farquhar down the rugby club!


The good thing about the SNP I read when I saw the Sun are supporting the SNP, and the Record Labour.  The Sun were arguing that the SNP's aspirational tax-cutting and upbeat electioneering is more in tune with their readers' outlook than the Record's more stolid reporting. Sun readers are younger, and more upwardly mobile, as are SNP voters.
 
Amen to a younger, more aspirational, more upbeat Scotland this Easter! Let this election catch the spirit! A good thumping of smug, dull old Labour will help!
 
I just hope the SNP don't win too big and that the LibDems stay strong!  We need them in a modern Scotland that is running to a better future!  

On being a punch bag - part 2

In the first post of this title I reflected on the torrid time the LibDems have faced in the last few months.  I noticed with dismay the kicking we have taken from some quarters and the way in which the LibDems have become at times toxic.

I argued that going into coalition with the Conservatives was courageous and probably right for the country and going with Labour was not really possible.  And I argued the coalition agreement at that point was essentially sound!


1  THAT WAS 2010, WHAT DO I THINK OF WHAT HAS SUBSEQUENTLY HAPPENED?

Lets start at the deep end - It seems to me the no university tuition fees pledge plus photographs in leaflets was a mistake and will go down in the annals of UK politics as one of the great electoral mistakes and cautionary tales!

I think the public seem to understand that if you go into coalition you have to compromise but expect you to deliver something on your key policies.

By campaigning with a pledge and a photo LibDems made tuition fees a key point.

It was about the young, it was about a flagship policy and an essential part of our brand, aping what had been incredibly effective politically in Scotland.  It was about progressive politics, our belief in education, social inclusion and mobility and also loved by middle class voters and mums and dads and grannies and grandpas too for that matter!

It seemed good politics humanising the rather dry business of key points and a costed programme - this was the vital emotional ingredient that told our story!

But, as Ed Milliband later said - it was naive to go with an out and out pledge!

What went wrong? 

The LibDem leadership did scenario testing quite well in pre election preparation for potential coalitions.  They considered the possibility that it the free tuition fees pledge may not be deliverable.  From what I understand Clegg realised too late that it may not be deliverable and Danny Alexander felt there was
enough there of the policy they could deliver in spirit to go with.  This means it was a mistake they ought not to have made.

Are they liars - no, of course not!

They achieved wider social inclusion and have improved the deal for more students from disadvantaged backgrounds than Labour or the Conservatives were proposing.  And they got more resources put into early stage and pre-school education that wasn't there before.

There were too many dependencies to deal with to unravel tuition fees.  The money wasn't there.  The universities had been deprived of too much funding. The Brown commission came to recommend tuition fees.  The Vice Chancellors want it.  Labour and the Conservatives want it.

They tried, they made a difference for the good, they got rid of them in Scotland before - but they couldn't deliver on this this time.  It is a slightly perverse irony that such a pile of excrement has fallen on the LibDem's head for fighting and failing - all because of the political mistake of making a policy a pledge and those photographs!

Clegg's mistake - which may indeed have been difficult to avoid as the difficulty in delivery became apparent at the 11th hour - means that being the FibDems is now part of the brand!

I fear in coalition you get associated with one thing.  In Scotland this was Free tuition fees and then Free personal care for the elderly.

I fear that with this government the one big thing we are remembered for may be the tuition fees fail.

We need this one thing to be something else!

2  WHAT HAVE THE LIBDEMS DONE IN GOVERNMENT?

Well quite a lot it would seem!!

http://www.whatthehellhavethelibdemsdone.com/

Raising the Income Tax threshhold to reduce tax for the lower paid, take 880,000 of the poorest out of income tax altogether and to fundamentally shift our tax and benefits system to make work pay is a major achievement.

Introducing the Green Investment bank and mapping out our route to renewable energy and low carbon sources of energy is important and I hope will become a more substantial achievement as this parliament unfolds.

I rather like the achievements on prioritising Dementia research and expanding talking therapies for mental health illnesses.

But there needs to be more delivered.

We must be seen to make a difference with reining in poor NHS reforms - of acting as a check and a balance.

We must be seen to move to limit cuts if things go well and tax receipts improve and progress is made with reducing the deficit.  We believe in public services and community after all.  Cuts are a necessity for us to put us on an even keel - not an article of faith like with some Tories.

But what will our one big thing be?

"Read my lips, no new taxes" was the mantra quoted by George Bush Snr on the stump.  I'm sure that was his intention but he couldn't deliver and this came back to crucify him 4 years later against Bill Clinton.  I fear Free Tuition fees and the failure to deliver on that pledge may haunt the LibDems and Nick Clegg through this election cycle.  I fear that may be our big thing we are remembered for!

We may yet make a difference!

Dr Eoin Clarke, historian, academic, and someone who is building quite a reputation as master of the data in his comments on Anthony Wells' UK Polling Report website reckons the LibDems will come back to poll ratings of 18%.

This would mean holding a lot of key seats but losing a few as well.

I feel we will eventually come back in this election cycle but damage will be done.  Eoin is pretty objective as a psephological commentator and has an uncanny nack

No he doesn't have a crystal ball but he is Irish so may be in league with the faeries!
http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2011/02/liberal-democrat-wipe-out-at-next.html

Where did we expect to be in the polls after deciding between red and blue and going into coalition with a tough agenda involving inevitable cuts.  I thought in 2010 maybe 15% - not around 10-12% (and worse in Scotland and Northern England)

I hope we get over what we have done on tuition fees.

I hope we find 1 big thing that the LibDems are recognised for delivering in government.

Better still, I hope we find a classic list of 3 big things the LibDems are recognised as having delivered.


3  SCHADENFREUDE

I have been rather amused at the schadenfreude (love that word) or joy at the LibDem's misfortune permeating the blogosphere.  You see it on Twitter and on the comments of blogs like UK Polling Report.

"The LibDems are liars and getting what they deserve".  The natural order of progressive politics is being restored with Labour on 45% and rising with the LibDems facing oblivion.  The reds can man the barricades to fight the evil old Etonians who care not for ordinary people preferring to persecute them while feathering their nests. A bit of a caricature perhaps but sometimes I wonder!  It certainly seems to be a role some of the reds love to play!

Don't forget about 1/3rd of Labour's current doesn't particularly believe in Labour policy yet! Partly because they are split between those who would tackle the deficit and those who see no need to cut anything!! See my previous posting about the paradox of Labour and some of the polling on the Labour support.

The LibDems may yet get some of these people back

Spare a thought for the LibDems courage and what they are doing. See beyond tuition fees - which was a political mistake not dishonesty or having the wrong idea!

In Scotland the Scottish election platform from the LibDems is actually rather good!

The centrepiece of the plans is a £1.5 billion windfall, coming from making Scottish Water a public benefit corporation. It retains public ownership, by selling off the debt it owes the taxpayer so that it pays the public back for the money it's borrowed. This restructuring would give an immediate cash windfall of around £2.75 billion.

  This would be invested for the long term - to create 100,000 jobs,

In addition:

• abolishing the Council Tax for pensioners on less than £10,000, paid for by reducing the pay bill for the highest earning public sector employees
• introducing a pupil premium to ensure that kids from poorer backgrounds don't lose out at school
• making sure business has the help it needs - with regional development banks providing investment 
• plans for getting superfast broadband out there to all of Scotland - to make Scotland the most connected country in Europe
• investment in science
• keeping the free higher education, which the LibDems won in 1999 in Scotland!!
• opposing the political power grab to the centre, especially a single Scottish police force.

This programme has been well received by analysts and independent commentators.

There remains very much a market demand for third party - a centrist party.

From what I read about the SNP, if Independence were achieved and the SNP broke left, right and centre, about 30% would break centre to Green or LibDem.

Some of the current Labour support could go LibDem if we remind them of why they used to like us.

However, we must beware the formulation of a special interest groups rainbow coalition - or of so called blue Labour - don't let Labour be receptacle for that - if we do Ed Milliband will have outflanked us and built his own Blairite coalition.

As LibDems we need to remember core ideas and be clear what we have done through government.  This includes what we have stopped being done.  This includes putting the brakes on the likes of Bill Cash and the Euro Sceptics!

Take me to the ball game!

It is a new ball game.  There has been no coalition since the war - and that was wartime national unity. It is a new game with new rules.  We should perhaps not get into a slavish adherence to cabinet responsibility.  We owe a duty to be clear about what LibDems are arguing for in government and against.  Yes, in government we must support the decisions that are made but I believe it is ok to have the party running arguments - on say whether we should have such high VAT - it is an honest approach.

We should not worry about being a punchbag by Labour supporters or the Daily Mail, or by getting lost in the quagmire of tuition fees - what's done is done!

We must now focus on deliverables and by getting out there with what we are trying to do!  Olly Grender, Paddy Ashdown's Director of Communications, has argued as much in the New Statesman recently!

It is also important that we don't look like poodles and that Clegg doesn't look like Cam's fag!!

Remember the LibDems like us. The Conservatives think we are ok.  It is Labour who hate us and they never supported us before!

As for ex LibDems - there must be some inevitable loss but if we deliver in government we will remind some of these voters why they liked us in the first place - at the next election cycle if not this one!

I still can't see the Greens on a reading of their current platform being a mass party.  The market demand for the centre is very much there as is the scope for doing well with a leader who catches the popular imagination!

We must toughen up, not listen to those who partisanly wish our demise and deliver stuff!

Why I'm supporting AV

While there are a number of arguments and points being made by both the Yes and No sides I think the issue is actually very simple.

The FPTP system is undemocratic and produces an inaccurate result.

It works well in a two party scenario but we have not had that since the 1960s - over 40 years now.

We have LibDems but also important strands of political thought in UKIP and the Greens - and Nationalists in Scotland and Wales.

Only around a little over 60% voted Con or Lab last time!

A key argument for FPTP is it gives a clear result and as long as that is broadly in line with the vote that is pragmatic. Governments are scrutinised and accountable at elections every 4 or 5 years and at by-elections!

However, the results have for some time been too approximate or remote from the will of the people to be democratic. They are quite distorting and suppress new and important political movements coming through.

It seems to me the case for change is in fact overwhelming! Simply because both FPTP and the election results it gives are wrong!

The key reasons for no change are in fact inertia and conservatism.

AV is not the best solution but it is an improvement and all that can be agreed upon at this stage.

It is also a low risk change which will modify rather than radically change.

And that is why I will be voting Yes to AV!

Gavin

The Tories in Scotland are different

I originally posted this as a comment on The Green Benches blog.  It is a good blog.  You will find a link on my blogroll to the right hand side.

I think the Tories in Scotland are less concerned about being anti-EU and anti immigration than down south.

Many of the young Turks are interested in Euro scepticism and love characters like Dan Hanan but it just doesn't matter to them as much. UKIP barely register a ripple north of the border after all.

They aren't and cannot be Little Englanders.

Their belief in Britishness is strong. As the generations pass and the Second World War goes into the past so this dissipates somewhat but it is central to who they are.

One thing which stands out - I believe is class - I perceive the Tories in Scotland as being very much the party of many of the professional classes in Edinburgh and Glasgow, of people who were educated privately there, of well to do folks of rural Borders and Perthshire. As such they are a group who many Scots struggle to relate to and have become a small party marginalised to some extent.

The theme of localism that has been suggested that runs like a schism in Scottish politics - localism v statism. They love their communities. Wedded to Britishness they may well be but they are proud Scots too.

This sense of community and localism means they are less idealistic about small government and low taxes than their English counterparts. this also helps explain why they seem to have a narrower social mix than the Tories down south.

I sense many of the Tories in Scotland are socially quite conservative. The family, community, lack of political correctness and a residual element of the deferential society and belief in institutions is there. You highlight the connection with the forces,

Of course the 80s and Thatcher saw them seriously marginalised in Scotland becoming toxic under FPTP ensuring a tactical allegiance against them everywhere.

They seem to be uneasy bedfellows with the SNP and I think they are more right wing than you say Eoin. They are also unionists and not separatists and not all even convinced about devolution.

Nonetheless the SNP seem unlikely to deliver separatism producing a loose left of centre non socialist alternative to labour. The Tories are uneasy about their lefty-ness but they can unite against the Labour establishment.

In fact with the SNP having a loose belief in 'fairness' they occupy some of the space the LibDems occupy - especially down south - though they have good pockets of support in central Scotland too. It seems almost like a Con/LibDem coalition united against conservative, tribal,established Labour - who are rather - well - dull!

So an uneasy relationship but perhaps the SNP offer the Tories a cloak under which to do things, a chance - the only chance - to beat Labour and help in the long march back from the margins and being perceived as non Scottish.

Gavin