I am having some time to catch up with the Local Government Bill going through the House of Commons which ends the defunct Norwich City Unitary plans. Indeed the ending of those plans gave me the time to watch it ... but never mind ... moving on!
During the debate, Norwich MP Simon Wright (whom to his credit along with Great Yarmouth's Brandon Lewis and Broadland's Keith Simpson turned up to the debate) was asked by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw if he thinks he would have won his seat had he admitted to being anti-Unitary before the election.
Simon Wright's great weakness if the widespread perception that he flip-flops. For something before the election (e.g. Unitary) and against afterwards. Or against something before the elections (increased fees, VAT rises, old folks facilities) and for them afterwards. So this was quite a tricky question when you are dealing with a 310 vote wafer thin majority.
No, he said, not a single vote switched as a result of unitary.
Rubbish, I say.
I met plenty of voters who moved to my campaign on the basis I was the only anti-Unitary candidate (including 2 of Mr Wright's near-neighbours who work for Norfolk County Council and had voted LibDem in the past). I didn't keep a count but the issue was raised time and again and I was always honest about where I stood (no point in doing otherwise - my views are easily googleable).
I don't know if 310 people or more switched to the LibDems on the basis of his then-held-views but I can say it was a campaign issue and it did cause people to alter their voting habits.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
A Better Way; a Plan or just a Slogan?
One of the great ignored aspect of the CSR (why, I hear you cry---) was the launch of a new online tool by Labour to help them with their policy making.
At Prime Ministers Question Time, Mr Cameron enjoyed a good win which included a line I think we'll hear again and again - that Labour can't criticise unless they have an alternative plan for the economy. So, what is Mr Miliband's plan? Seeing as the last plan was rejected by the British people at the ballot box, he is pleading with the voters for their ideas. The brilliant www.yourbetterway.com is a way of crowd sourcing the CSR.
Now, it doesn't help that Labour's example of a better way is the awful bland line of "My better way is to make sure that an ordinary family like mine gets treated fairly." Errr ... what? We need to make cuts, even Labour admit that. The argument is about who, where and when. If the Chancellor rose and came out with this sort of line, he'd have been rightly laughed out of the chamber.
Labour want 20% reductions in spending - so the question is, for every coalition cut they oppose, what else would they cut or what tax would they raise to compensate for this?
The stuff written on the website is a list of things people don't like about the CSR. Now, that's fine - the public don't have to come up with the detailed answers themselves, but for Labour to try and spin this website as an crowd-sources alternative CSR is beyond parody. I only read the submissions from in and around Norwich but it seems a lot of people don't like a lot of the cuts. OK then, Labour, what else is it to be? You wanted to make 20% cuts - let's hear them.
Where are they? What cuts are you going to make? What taxes will you raise?
It is easy to list things you oppose - much harder to have a credible economic policy and plan for government. The website is a campaign tool; a slogan; and let's not pretend it's anything more.
At Prime Ministers Question Time, Mr Cameron enjoyed a good win which included a line I think we'll hear again and again - that Labour can't criticise unless they have an alternative plan for the economy. So, what is Mr Miliband's plan? Seeing as the last plan was rejected by the British people at the ballot box, he is pleading with the voters for their ideas. The brilliant www.yourbetterway.com is a way of crowd sourcing the CSR.
Now, it doesn't help that Labour's example of a better way is the awful bland line of "My better way is to make sure that an ordinary family like mine gets treated fairly." Errr ... what? We need to make cuts, even Labour admit that. The argument is about who, where and when. If the Chancellor rose and came out with this sort of line, he'd have been rightly laughed out of the chamber.
Labour want 20% reductions in spending - so the question is, for every coalition cut they oppose, what else would they cut or what tax would they raise to compensate for this?
The stuff written on the website is a list of things people don't like about the CSR. Now, that's fine - the public don't have to come up with the detailed answers themselves, but for Labour to try and spin this website as an crowd-sources alternative CSR is beyond parody. I only read the submissions from in and around Norwich but it seems a lot of people don't like a lot of the cuts. OK then, Labour, what else is it to be? You wanted to make 20% cuts - let's hear them.
Where are they? What cuts are you going to make? What taxes will you raise?
It is easy to list things you oppose - much harder to have a credible economic policy and plan for government. The website is a campaign tool; a slogan; and let's not pretend it's anything more.
The (Necessary) Dark Arts?
The Whips divide opinion in British politics, usually depending on which side of the fence you sit on. Those on the frontbenches think they are vital to allowing the machinery of government work; they offer a necessary stability to the uncertain world of the legislature and provide the oil required to make the machine work. For some on the backbenches they represent the "old politics", whom wish for there to be no dissent, stifle freedom of speech and clamp down on the honest plain speaking that out politics, so distrusted by the public, needs.
Whatever side you sit on, this article from former Tory MP Paul Goodman on ConservativeHome.Com, with the current government Chief Whip is outstanding and really helps us to understand who the whips are and what they do.
If the electoral system is up for debate, and the number and size of constituencies, why should the fusion of the legislature and the executive not be up for debate too? Because therein lies the real debate over the dark arts of the whips.
Whatever side you sit on, this article from former Tory MP Paul Goodman on ConservativeHome.Com, with the current government Chief Whip is outstanding and really helps us to understand who the whips are and what they do.
If the electoral system is up for debate, and the number and size of constituencies, why should the fusion of the legislature and the executive not be up for debate too? Because therein lies the real debate over the dark arts of the whips.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
It just doesn't look very good ...
The Mirror were, loyal to HMV "Red Ed", on the lookout for stories for the whole of the Tory Conference and used some pretty low, bordering on illegal, tactics to get them. They need not have bothered - this revelation about a Tory Council Leader using a £500-a-night hotel on the taxpayers when he lives just 4 miles away from the ICC in Birmingham (and has a chauffeur anyway) - trumps anything they may have about young Tories falling over, vomiting or having a crush on David Cameron.
Read the article here for all the details, but I would say this. I absolutely agree with Cllr. Whitby that getting through security was often long winded and could delay you anywhere up to a half hour. I agree that if somebody, like a cabinet minister, wanted to see you it meant there and then and could often be into the small hours of the morning. But ... there is absolutely no excuse for this because it just doesn't look very good to the taxpaying public. Spending this amount of money, no matter what the offset costs are, make politicians (of whatever party) look very much out of touch. Whatever the excuses he may have, think of it this way - the political class are about to make some very tough decisions that will leave people out of jobs, financially struggling, cutting benefits and the like - they don't want to see their elected representatives in posh hotels whilst they finalise those decisions.
And anyway, I doubt Uncle Eric would approve ...
Read the article here for all the details, but I would say this. I absolutely agree with Cllr. Whitby that getting through security was often long winded and could delay you anywhere up to a half hour. I agree that if somebody, like a cabinet minister, wanted to see you it meant there and then and could often be into the small hours of the morning. But ... there is absolutely no excuse for this because it just doesn't look very good to the taxpaying public. Spending this amount of money, no matter what the offset costs are, make politicians (of whatever party) look very much out of touch. Whatever the excuses he may have, think of it this way - the political class are about to make some very tough decisions that will leave people out of jobs, financially struggling, cutting benefits and the like - they don't want to see their elected representatives in posh hotels whilst they finalise those decisions.
And anyway, I doubt Uncle Eric would approve ...
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Conference: Then & Now
One of the BBC Reporters I was speaking to during the conference made the observation that everybody ought to go to at least 1 party conference at least once, just to experience it. He's absolutely right; it is an experience like no other and I would urge people, especially those who are not political to give it a go. This was my first conference in ten years; the last time I went we were in the doldrums of opposition and with things unlikely to get any better. Here are my thoughts on what has changed, got better or worse and stayed the same in the 10 years I was missing from conference.
The Conference Facilities: I have to say I was very impressed with Birmingham; an easy drive from Norwich and the ICC/Hyatt were simple to find and get to. The only problem we had was finding our way to the hotel after the police cut off most of the major roads! The ICC itself was an excellent facility and the staff were very friendly and helpful. My one big criticism in the main hall itself; it was very small and meant that we were unable to get into some of the major speeches including George Osborne's. However, if I were a cynic (heaven forbid) I would say that the excellent facilities have therefore diminished the role of the conference hall itself - there is so much else to see and do that the speeches almost got in the way!
The Platform Speeches: I have watched a few back on iplayer and BBC Parliament and you get a very different sense of a speech in the hall itself. I didn't think, for example, Eric Pickles came across half as well on TV as he did in the hall. Michael Gove was, for me, the darling of the conference and the whole session on public services was very well put together. We have a lot of excellent speakers in the cabinet and government. My one problem, though, was the stage managed element of this. We were asked to put forward questions and make submissions but the number of opportunities was very limited and even when I went to do this well in advance, all the slots had been taken. Such a shame that wasn't more an opportunity for the membership to "own" the conference hall itself.
The Fringe: And so that led to the best bit of the conference, the amazing fringe meetings. There were hundreds to choose from, very diverse topics and well put on. I did a full day, every day - from breakfast meetings to lunch time, early evening and then night time fringes. The debate was free-flowing and, actually, very respectful of people's opinions. At one fringe, I spoke to defend the principle of mixed ability teaching after a half dozen others spoke up for setting and streaming in schools. I expected to be savaged, but not.
The Lobbyists / Media: One thing which has changed massively is the number of lobbyists and media present now we are in government. Many of them dominated fringe meetings to spread their cause or deliver a message. I'm OK with this, but not if it drowns out the members having their say. One fringe I went to had lobbyist, after lobbyist, after lobbyist, speaking. A massive industry has been sparked in the last 10 years. One estimate I received is that only a third of people there were actually Tory members / delegates.
The Minister's Mind: One thing I had forgotten is what amazing access you get to Ministers, MPs and even the media themselves. I bumped into most of the senior BBC staff and spoke to them and probably half of the cabinet. You forget how human some of these people are - I ran into Transport Secretary Phillip Hammond, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, Leader of the House Sir George Young, Education Secretary Michael Gove amongst others ... all just looking around the conference or having a drink at the bar. No wonder this kind of event attracts lobbyists!
The Exhibition: Now wasn't that good! The conference exhibition was massive - much bigger than 10 years ago, with various groups having stands and trying to engage the delegates and each other. CCHQ put on a good range of training, I enjoyed Red Ed's Beer & Sandwiches, stands with the latest in technology, Conservative friend groups, printers, shops (ASDA and M&S were there), unions & public sector groups. It was vibrant, noisy, engaging and never dull. When I had a spare half hour, a wander around the exhibition was a great way of bumping into people.
The Parties: Something which hasn't changed is the Tory capacity to drink and eat!! The food was good but got very samey towards the end as most parties / fringe meetings had the same caterers! Best booze award goes to the teaching unions for their wine stocks and to the Conservative Friends of Cyprus for having decent beer! Best food award goes to Barnardos for their Fish 'n' Chip supper! The National Autistic Society had a cocktails party too! The Eastern Region Reception was very well attended and great fun and the Norfolk Tories tried, and failed, to eat the hottest curry known to man.
The Security: 10 years ago you pretty much were able to stroll into conference with a swipe of your library card. Now we've in government the security was amazing; it sometimes took a good 20-30 minutes just to get into the ICC; which as you have the PM and cabinet around must be a good thing! The security staff were all very good natured and even the policemen with guns cracked a smile!
The Splits: In short, I didn't spot any. The Freedom Zone, outside of the conference center, ran a number of very good events where the more radical elements of Tory thinking were explored. Quite right too - good on them. Debate is important, especially as we weren't allowed any in the main conference hall.
The Stamina: I had forgotten that Conference is a stamina event; either that or I could manage it 10 years ago and can't now! Getting up for an 8am fringe, going to bed at 3am and drinking for 15 hours straight can make things difficult (at my age). But it was so good natured and happy. There was, above all, a real sense of enjoyment about the conference.
The Conservative Party seemed more professional and much more organized than I ever remembered. It was a really good event and hopefully I may be able to do it again, maybe within the next 10 years.
I'll finished with another word from a BBC reporter; they do 3 weeks of this, on the road, from the LibDems to Labour to the Tories. The LibDem event was muted, the Labour get-together was stunned and the Conservative conference was just more fun.
The Conference Facilities: I have to say I was very impressed with Birmingham; an easy drive from Norwich and the ICC/Hyatt were simple to find and get to. The only problem we had was finding our way to the hotel after the police cut off most of the major roads! The ICC itself was an excellent facility and the staff were very friendly and helpful. My one big criticism in the main hall itself; it was very small and meant that we were unable to get into some of the major speeches including George Osborne's. However, if I were a cynic (heaven forbid) I would say that the excellent facilities have therefore diminished the role of the conference hall itself - there is so much else to see and do that the speeches almost got in the way!
The Platform Speeches: I have watched a few back on iplayer and BBC Parliament and you get a very different sense of a speech in the hall itself. I didn't think, for example, Eric Pickles came across half as well on TV as he did in the hall. Michael Gove was, for me, the darling of the conference and the whole session on public services was very well put together. We have a lot of excellent speakers in the cabinet and government. My one problem, though, was the stage managed element of this. We were asked to put forward questions and make submissions but the number of opportunities was very limited and even when I went to do this well in advance, all the slots had been taken. Such a shame that wasn't more an opportunity for the membership to "own" the conference hall itself.
The Fringe: And so that led to the best bit of the conference, the amazing fringe meetings. There were hundreds to choose from, very diverse topics and well put on. I did a full day, every day - from breakfast meetings to lunch time, early evening and then night time fringes. The debate was free-flowing and, actually, very respectful of people's opinions. At one fringe, I spoke to defend the principle of mixed ability teaching after a half dozen others spoke up for setting and streaming in schools. I expected to be savaged, but not.
The Lobbyists / Media: One thing which has changed massively is the number of lobbyists and media present now we are in government. Many of them dominated fringe meetings to spread their cause or deliver a message. I'm OK with this, but not if it drowns out the members having their say. One fringe I went to had lobbyist, after lobbyist, after lobbyist, speaking. A massive industry has been sparked in the last 10 years. One estimate I received is that only a third of people there were actually Tory members / delegates.
The Minister's Mind: One thing I had forgotten is what amazing access you get to Ministers, MPs and even the media themselves. I bumped into most of the senior BBC staff and spoke to them and probably half of the cabinet. You forget how human some of these people are - I ran into Transport Secretary Phillip Hammond, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, Leader of the House Sir George Young, Education Secretary Michael Gove amongst others ... all just looking around the conference or having a drink at the bar. No wonder this kind of event attracts lobbyists!
The Exhibition: Now wasn't that good! The conference exhibition was massive - much bigger than 10 years ago, with various groups having stands and trying to engage the delegates and each other. CCHQ put on a good range of training, I enjoyed Red Ed's Beer & Sandwiches, stands with the latest in technology, Conservative friend groups, printers, shops (ASDA and M&S were there), unions & public sector groups. It was vibrant, noisy, engaging and never dull. When I had a spare half hour, a wander around the exhibition was a great way of bumping into people.
The Parties: Something which hasn't changed is the Tory capacity to drink and eat!! The food was good but got very samey towards the end as most parties / fringe meetings had the same caterers! Best booze award goes to the teaching unions for their wine stocks and to the Conservative Friends of Cyprus for having decent beer! Best food award goes to Barnardos for their Fish 'n' Chip supper! The National Autistic Society had a cocktails party too! The Eastern Region Reception was very well attended and great fun and the Norfolk Tories tried, and failed, to eat the hottest curry known to man.
The Security: 10 years ago you pretty much were able to stroll into conference with a swipe of your library card. Now we've in government the security was amazing; it sometimes took a good 20-30 minutes just to get into the ICC; which as you have the PM and cabinet around must be a good thing! The security staff were all very good natured and even the policemen with guns cracked a smile!
The Splits: In short, I didn't spot any. The Freedom Zone, outside of the conference center, ran a number of very good events where the more radical elements of Tory thinking were explored. Quite right too - good on them. Debate is important, especially as we weren't allowed any in the main conference hall.
The Stamina: I had forgotten that Conference is a stamina event; either that or I could manage it 10 years ago and can't now! Getting up for an 8am fringe, going to bed at 3am and drinking for 15 hours straight can make things difficult (at my age). But it was so good natured and happy. There was, above all, a real sense of enjoyment about the conference.
The Conservative Party seemed more professional and much more organized than I ever remembered. It was a really good event and hopefully I may be able to do it again, maybe within the next 10 years.
I'll finished with another word from a BBC reporter; they do 3 weeks of this, on the road, from the LibDems to Labour to the Tories. The LibDem event was muted, the Labour get-together was stunned and the Conservative conference was just more fun.
Friday, October 08, 2010
Ed's Loose Change
New Labour Leader (oops - he won't like me saying that!) Ed Miliband has today announced his first Shadow Cabinet and I have to say that I share the view of many that a lot of his appointing are, frankly, bizarre.
I know that he has his hands tied by having to have Shadow Cabinet elections rather than just appointing who he likes - although apparently he can also appoint some places too (more on that later) - but his allocation of jobs goes from the boring to the bonkers (copyright, Labour MPs).
A lot has been focused on the role of Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor, but to me the most fascinating role is that given to Harriet Harman. Hattie is a Shadow Cabinet certainty given her directly elected role of Deputy Leader. Under Mr Brown, Harman also doubled (or quadrupled) as Commons Leader, Labour Chairmwoman and Minister for Equalities. No doubt she'll be grateful to be down to just the 2 extra jobs ... Deputy Leader and Shadow International Development Secretary. Odd, I think, but maybe explainable. You see, Harriet's standing has rocketed after her stint as Acting Leader. Share prices in HH Ltd. have gone through the roof. The reception and plaudits she won at conference show us that. Like Margaret Beckett in1994, Harman's political reputation has been enhanced no end. In fact to the point where I know a lot of Labour members who wished she had gone for the top job herself. So given her massive popularity and status within the party, why dump her off on the relatively low status cabinet job of Shadow DID? Most people expected at least Shadow Justice (taken by Red Ed's main man Sadiq Khan). I am not saying that International Development isn't important - it is, as shown by the fact it has a ring fenced budget - but that the cabinet role doesn't involve the great partisanship and media role that Harman would thrive on. Ed has showed her into the background, maybe fearful of the power that a resurgent Harman has in the party. I'm afraid this role, to me, makes Ed look weak. He should have exploited Harman rather than demolishing her.
So onto the top jobs. Johnson for Shadow Chancellor is a sound move in one way - he is a loyal, union man and will serve Ed to the end with undying-bunker-mentality. He is also an extremely effective Commons performer (one of Mrs Little's favourite MPs actually) and will give the Chancellor a real run for his money (no pun intended). But Johnson is the compromise candidate; a man who will show the imprint of the last leader to sit on him. Ed can mould Alan in his own image. And so, because he doesn't have the guts to choose between Ed Balls and Mrs Ed Balls, Alan will do for now. Somebody on the Beeb suggested he was a caretaker appointment - I think so too. I saw Johnson doing an interview on Sky and was, frankly, terrible. He avoided all questions about policy, or even opinions, and sidestepped the issued of public sector pensions and strike action. But I guess he won't find his backbone until Ed tells him where it is. And that leaves Balls and Cooper like fish out of water in their new roles. Economists both, and both yearing for the top economic portfolio, Yvette Cooper now has to shadow the Foreign Secretary William Hague and Ed Balls is opposite Home Secretary Theresa May. I would suggest that Mr Hague will sleep more soundly than Mrs May, but neither Labour spokespeople have the experience or knowledge - yet - to lay a glove on the government.
The LibDems in the coalition may too be breathing a sign of relief that they will not have to face Labour's big guns - maybe a sign on the big thaw between the two parties. Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will face charming former Treasury Minister Angela Eagle. I am no fan of Mr Alexander but he dwarfs her and won't face much of a Commons challenge. John Denham, for Labour, will be opposite Vince Cable. Mr Denham, who clung on by his fingernails in his Southampton constituency, is a good and clever man but Vince is there to be wound up a treat by Labour and Denham isn't the man who can do this. Chris Huhne now faces Meg Millier - who? - a fairly anonymous former Minister who doesn't seem to have much going for her. Ann McKechin is now Shadow Scottish Secretary and given her deep rooted socialist links, it'll give LibDem Michael Moore plenty of scope for attack. That leaves Sadiq Khan opposite Nick Clegg. What a let down - Jack Straw used sheer gravitas and intellect to regularly crush the hapless Clegg at Commons Questions and I would suggest that the DPM will relieved to have some of the political heat taken off. Mr Khan is a man rewarded for his loyalty and way, way out of his depth. The LibDems in government look like they have survived the worst of Labour's "new generation".
That leaves Andy Burnham - my pick for Labour Leader - at Shadow Education. Although I think Mr Burnham will be a tougher opponent that many Tories think, the fact is that Michael Gove has intellectual rigour on his side and Burnham's button-down-the-hatches view of education (the it's all fine just chuck some money at it approach) won't work. John Healey is a well respected MP but he'll have to put in some work to deal with Andrew Lansley who has had the Health portfolio in and out of government for six years now and is considered a formidable expert on the NHS now.
Labour's election guru Douglas Alexander is Shadow DWP opposite Iain Duncan Smith. Duncan Smith has the edge on thinking and until Labour formulate their own ideas for welfare reform, his policy of oppose-oppose-oppose (I am guessing that's what it'll be) won't be enough.
Caroline Flint, who definitely isn't window dressing, is back at Shadow Communities and I cannot wait to see her come up against Secretary Pickles, public chum number one! It is the one Commons clash that I am really looking forward to!
I think shuffling Hilary Benn off to Shadow Commons Leader is a bit premature as that role involves lots of HoC work rather than letting Mr Benn loose on one of the big spending departments. I am glad Lima Byrne survived, shadowing Francis Maude, as a certain "note" may make regular reappearances in debate!
And then there is Peter Hain (Shadow Wales) and Shaun Woodward (Shadow NI) - the two men who now they didn't get into the Shadow Cabinet by rights. How can they go to work in the morning knowing they shouldn't be there? Mind you, I suppose Ed has to do that too!
All in all I don't sense a thread running through this; rather more like a collection of panic appointments. Very few of them backed Ed in the first place and for a new generation they look rather a lot like Brown's old generation. I am afraid not good enough, yet, and I would expect Ed to be re-shuffling again in about a year.
I know that he has his hands tied by having to have Shadow Cabinet elections rather than just appointing who he likes - although apparently he can also appoint some places too (more on that later) - but his allocation of jobs goes from the boring to the bonkers (copyright, Labour MPs).
A lot has been focused on the role of Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor, but to me the most fascinating role is that given to Harriet Harman. Hattie is a Shadow Cabinet certainty given her directly elected role of Deputy Leader. Under Mr Brown, Harman also doubled (or quadrupled) as Commons Leader, Labour Chairmwoman and Minister for Equalities. No doubt she'll be grateful to be down to just the 2 extra jobs ... Deputy Leader and Shadow International Development Secretary. Odd, I think, but maybe explainable. You see, Harriet's standing has rocketed after her stint as Acting Leader. Share prices in HH Ltd. have gone through the roof. The reception and plaudits she won at conference show us that. Like Margaret Beckett in1994, Harman's political reputation has been enhanced no end. In fact to the point where I know a lot of Labour members who wished she had gone for the top job herself. So given her massive popularity and status within the party, why dump her off on the relatively low status cabinet job of Shadow DID? Most people expected at least Shadow Justice (taken by Red Ed's main man Sadiq Khan). I am not saying that International Development isn't important - it is, as shown by the fact it has a ring fenced budget - but that the cabinet role doesn't involve the great partisanship and media role that Harman would thrive on. Ed has showed her into the background, maybe fearful of the power that a resurgent Harman has in the party. I'm afraid this role, to me, makes Ed look weak. He should have exploited Harman rather than demolishing her.
So onto the top jobs. Johnson for Shadow Chancellor is a sound move in one way - he is a loyal, union man and will serve Ed to the end with undying-bunker-mentality. He is also an extremely effective Commons performer (one of Mrs Little's favourite MPs actually) and will give the Chancellor a real run for his money (no pun intended). But Johnson is the compromise candidate; a man who will show the imprint of the last leader to sit on him. Ed can mould Alan in his own image. And so, because he doesn't have the guts to choose between Ed Balls and Mrs Ed Balls, Alan will do for now. Somebody on the Beeb suggested he was a caretaker appointment - I think so too. I saw Johnson doing an interview on Sky and was, frankly, terrible. He avoided all questions about policy, or even opinions, and sidestepped the issued of public sector pensions and strike action. But I guess he won't find his backbone until Ed tells him where it is. And that leaves Balls and Cooper like fish out of water in their new roles. Economists both, and both yearing for the top economic portfolio, Yvette Cooper now has to shadow the Foreign Secretary William Hague and Ed Balls is opposite Home Secretary Theresa May. I would suggest that Mr Hague will sleep more soundly than Mrs May, but neither Labour spokespeople have the experience or knowledge - yet - to lay a glove on the government.
The LibDems in the coalition may too be breathing a sign of relief that they will not have to face Labour's big guns - maybe a sign on the big thaw between the two parties. Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will face charming former Treasury Minister Angela Eagle. I am no fan of Mr Alexander but he dwarfs her and won't face much of a Commons challenge. John Denham, for Labour, will be opposite Vince Cable. Mr Denham, who clung on by his fingernails in his Southampton constituency, is a good and clever man but Vince is there to be wound up a treat by Labour and Denham isn't the man who can do this. Chris Huhne now faces Meg Millier - who? - a fairly anonymous former Minister who doesn't seem to have much going for her. Ann McKechin is now Shadow Scottish Secretary and given her deep rooted socialist links, it'll give LibDem Michael Moore plenty of scope for attack. That leaves Sadiq Khan opposite Nick Clegg. What a let down - Jack Straw used sheer gravitas and intellect to regularly crush the hapless Clegg at Commons Questions and I would suggest that the DPM will relieved to have some of the political heat taken off. Mr Khan is a man rewarded for his loyalty and way, way out of his depth. The LibDems in government look like they have survived the worst of Labour's "new generation".
That leaves Andy Burnham - my pick for Labour Leader - at Shadow Education. Although I think Mr Burnham will be a tougher opponent that many Tories think, the fact is that Michael Gove has intellectual rigour on his side and Burnham's button-down-the-hatches view of education (the it's all fine just chuck some money at it approach) won't work. John Healey is a well respected MP but he'll have to put in some work to deal with Andrew Lansley who has had the Health portfolio in and out of government for six years now and is considered a formidable expert on the NHS now.
Labour's election guru Douglas Alexander is Shadow DWP opposite Iain Duncan Smith. Duncan Smith has the edge on thinking and until Labour formulate their own ideas for welfare reform, his policy of oppose-oppose-oppose (I am guessing that's what it'll be) won't be enough.
Caroline Flint, who definitely isn't window dressing, is back at Shadow Communities and I cannot wait to see her come up against Secretary Pickles, public chum number one! It is the one Commons clash that I am really looking forward to!
I think shuffling Hilary Benn off to Shadow Commons Leader is a bit premature as that role involves lots of HoC work rather than letting Mr Benn loose on one of the big spending departments. I am glad Lima Byrne survived, shadowing Francis Maude, as a certain "note" may make regular reappearances in debate!
And then there is Peter Hain (Shadow Wales) and Shaun Woodward (Shadow NI) - the two men who now they didn't get into the Shadow Cabinet by rights. How can they go to work in the morning knowing they shouldn't be there? Mind you, I suppose Ed has to do that too!
All in all I don't sense a thread running through this; rather more like a collection of panic appointments. Very few of them backed Ed in the first place and for a new generation they look rather a lot like Brown's old generation. I am afraid not good enough, yet, and I would expect Ed to be re-shuffling again in about a year.
Friday, October 01, 2010
In Praise of Dan Cox
I am very sad to see that Dan Cox has resigned as Conservative Leader and County Council Leader. He is doing so for the right reasons, working with VSO in India to provide for some of the very poorest. That's taking "Social Action" to a whole new level! Dan has been a keen champion and a good friend for the last few years. He led the party to a massive victory in the 2009 elections and has steered the authority through the turmoil of Labour's failed unitary bid. He has led the council through economic choppy-waters and remained a focused, decent guy. I, and I am sure politics as a whole, will miss Dan Cox - "a good guy".
Busy Life
Apologies for the lack of blogging - I thought that being out of politics would give me more time, but sadly not! I am taking on one or two very exciting projects, more to come later, but they are outside of the Conservatives!
But the no-politics diet is about to come to a crushing end because on Sunday we are off to conference in Birmingham. I am pleased that Norwich will be very well represented at the conference and I am going to some very interesting fringe meetings as well as a number of sessions in the main hall. I am very much looking forward to this - my first conference since 2000; I wonder how things have changed in ten years!
I have my bagged packed, my conference badge on standby and ready to go - I don't think I'll have time to blog but keep an eye on my Twitter to see updates!
But the no-politics diet is about to come to a crushing end because on Sunday we are off to conference in Birmingham. I am pleased that Norwich will be very well represented at the conference and I am going to some very interesting fringe meetings as well as a number of sessions in the main hall. I am very much looking forward to this - my first conference since 2000; I wonder how things have changed in ten years!
I have my bagged packed, my conference badge on standby and ready to go - I don't think I'll have time to blog but keep an eye on my Twitter to see updates!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Ministers Threaten To Quit
Don't for a moment think I am happy about this, but the Channel 4 exclusive about 2 Tory Ministers - Jeremy Wright & David Lidington - threatening to quit if the plans for a high speed rail link between London and Birmingham are not scrapped does have an interest side line for us teachers of politics. The rail line, we are told, would do great damage to their constituencies and they will go if it presses ahead because they'll want to vote against it in the House. This really is collective responsibility working - if you can't support a key government policy you can't be in the government. What a world away from Labour Ministers campaigning against hospital closures that their government forced through, for example.
Ministers have 2 options - abandon their principles / constituents and vote with the government.
Or vote against their own government, which Ministers cannot do. So quit as a Minister to vote against them.
Collective responsibility - Ministerial responsibility - Individual responsibility.
Maybe, just maybe, making a comeback in a government near you ...
Ministers have 2 options - abandon their principles / constituents and vote with the government.
Or vote against their own government, which Ministers cannot do. So quit as a Minister to vote against them.
Collective responsibility - Ministerial responsibility - Individual responsibility.
Maybe, just maybe, making a comeback in a government near you ...
Cable is Wrong on Bankers
If I didn't know better, I'd have assumed that the rabble rousing speech by Vince Cable was a leadership bid in the making. He delivered it extremely well and very funny in parts it was too. And the LibDem crowd lapped it up - yellow friends of mine who were there said it was, finally, what they wanted to hear. So, good news - except for the fact that we need to stop this ridiculous banker bashing.
Even LibDem Susan Kramer says this must come to an end. And I say so for two reasons.
Firstly because Labour are using it as a fig leaf for their disastrous tenure. Forget Brown's government, they tell us, it's all down to the bankers. Yes, every problem of the last 13 years - would you believe it! Well, actually, no I don't. What about the role of the government in setting a framework and the role of regulators in enforcing it? What about Brown's reckless spending and borrowing and spending and then borrowing some more? By reinforcing the public image that its all the fault of the bankers we let Brown, Labour and the Milibands off the hook for their role in this.
And secondly because it isn't true. The vast majority of bankers did not cause this and are not "spivs". Somehow it has been acceptable to be publicly vile to a whole profession on the basis of a minority of them. All teachers are bad!! All police officers are bent!! All politicians are corrupt!! Obviously nonsense and yet we allow people to talk about bankers in the same way. Tax them!! String them up!! Castrate them!! Hardly fair or accurate, from a party that preaches fairness. Playing to the crowd? Who'd have believed it from a LibDem?
As somebody tweeted me this evening - after agreeing with this argument - let's focus our anger on the minority that deserve it. Sadly, Cable's speech was aimed at his party and his standing rather than serious debate. I'm surprised that Cable has allowed this to happen.
Update:
I notice that not only the "establishment" but also the Director of the Adam Smith Institute (whom Cable credited with his ideas) have rubbished it now.
Update2:
This post says it rather well too
Even LibDem Susan Kramer says this must come to an end. And I say so for two reasons.
Firstly because Labour are using it as a fig leaf for their disastrous tenure. Forget Brown's government, they tell us, it's all down to the bankers. Yes, every problem of the last 13 years - would you believe it! Well, actually, no I don't. What about the role of the government in setting a framework and the role of regulators in enforcing it? What about Brown's reckless spending and borrowing and spending and then borrowing some more? By reinforcing the public image that its all the fault of the bankers we let Brown, Labour and the Milibands off the hook for their role in this.
And secondly because it isn't true. The vast majority of bankers did not cause this and are not "spivs". Somehow it has been acceptable to be publicly vile to a whole profession on the basis of a minority of them. All teachers are bad!! All police officers are bent!! All politicians are corrupt!! Obviously nonsense and yet we allow people to talk about bankers in the same way. Tax them!! String them up!! Castrate them!! Hardly fair or accurate, from a party that preaches fairness. Playing to the crowd? Who'd have believed it from a LibDem?
As somebody tweeted me this evening - after agreeing with this argument - let's focus our anger on the minority that deserve it. Sadly, Cable's speech was aimed at his party and his standing rather than serious debate. I'm surprised that Cable has allowed this to happen.
Update:
I notice that not only the "establishment" but also the Director of the Adam Smith Institute (whom Cable credited with his ideas) have rubbished it now.
Update2:
This post says it rather well too
Monday, September 20, 2010
Chugging Rules In Place
I am extremely pleased that new regulations that I championed as a Councillor have now been put into force (details here) to combat issues that many members of the public feel about chugging (or "face to face fund raising").
There will now be rules as to where fundraisers can be and limits on the number of times and days of the week that the activity can be carried out.
Norwich is, rightly, a vibrant City - but when we were going down Gentleman's Walk on Saturday, with Libby in a buggy, it was like being on a cannon run. It was so busy it was actually uncomfortable and we ended up seeking sanctuary somewhere else. If these new rules help to improve this situation just a little bit they will be worthwhile.
I spent a long time researching this, liaising with the regulation body (the PFRA) and then putting the motion through council so I have a certain amount of pride in this announcement.
Well done to the City Council for having the guts to take on this issue.
There will now be rules as to where fundraisers can be and limits on the number of times and days of the week that the activity can be carried out.
Norwich is, rightly, a vibrant City - but when we were going down Gentleman's Walk on Saturday, with Libby in a buggy, it was like being on a cannon run. It was so busy it was actually uncomfortable and we ended up seeking sanctuary somewhere else. If these new rules help to improve this situation just a little bit they will be worthwhile.
I spent a long time researching this, liaising with the regulation body (the PFRA) and then putting the motion through council so I have a certain amount of pride in this announcement.
Well done to the City Council for having the guts to take on this issue.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Why I'm For Andy
The Labour Leadership contest has been an absolute bore-fest for those of us not in the Labour Party; similar, I should imagine, for non-supporters in any leadership election. However I have been interested in the media coverage, debates and focus groups which have provided the electorate (which covers Labour Members and Trade Unionists) with a great deal of information.
Of course, my original choice was the current Shadow Home Secretary Alan Johnson, whose assured, confident and humorous Commons speeches have shown a man very relaxed with not standing for the leadership. I am glad he didn't stand, but wonder if he even intends to stand for election to the Shadow Cabinet? Anyway, back to the rest ...
Diane Abbott, the "great communicator" has fallen flat in my view. As a dinosaur leftie we all knew she wasn't going to win, but I expected her to blow the contest wide open. I doubt she will even in these late stages. The two Milibands are just b-o-r-i-n-g; David has history involving a banana that may well haunt him for a long time and his admission that he drinks beer by the half-pint is his "baseball cap" moment (copyright, W.Hague). Ed on the otherhand comes across in a kind of nerd-trying-to-be-groovy kind of way. That leaves the two people that have really impressed me the most in this contest.
There is Ed Balls, who scrapped home in his Morley seat at the election, the most loyal commander left in the Brown bunker. He has shown himself to be a bulldog and would be an opportunistic fighter for Labour in opposition; just what they need in many ways. However despite this he doesn't look like the next Prime Minister. He may well have secured himself the Shadow Home Secretary position as a reward for having such a good leadership campaign.
And so to Andy Burnham - the frontline candidate whom we knew least about before this election. He's impressed me as the man who speaks in normal language and with a normal tone of voice. He represents his home constituency and has been loyal through-and-through. He has been leading the debate with ideas (not that I agree with them, of course, but at least he's brave enough to put them forward). He seems at ease, handles pressure well and has stayed above the Mili-spats going on. I am impressed and would be much more concerned if he led Labour than any of the others.
Having said that - to be frank I don't think any of them look like election winners. One Labour activist said to me at the count on Thursday that when Hague fought Clarke and IDS fought Clarke, they prayed for the leader most likely to screw up the Tories. Was I, he asked, doing the same for Labour? No, I replied, whoever wins the Labour crown then Cameron is still sure to win the next election. For us, it's a win-win-win-win-win situation. But if Labour activists were to take any advice from an old Tory lag like me, to make the best fist of the next parliament - it has to be Andy Burnham.
Of course, my original choice was the current Shadow Home Secretary Alan Johnson, whose assured, confident and humorous Commons speeches have shown a man very relaxed with not standing for the leadership. I am glad he didn't stand, but wonder if he even intends to stand for election to the Shadow Cabinet? Anyway, back to the rest ...
Diane Abbott, the "great communicator" has fallen flat in my view. As a dinosaur leftie we all knew she wasn't going to win, but I expected her to blow the contest wide open. I doubt she will even in these late stages. The two Milibands are just b-o-r-i-n-g; David has history involving a banana that may well haunt him for a long time and his admission that he drinks beer by the half-pint is his "baseball cap" moment (copyright, W.Hague). Ed on the otherhand comes across in a kind of nerd-trying-to-be-groovy kind of way. That leaves the two people that have really impressed me the most in this contest.
There is Ed Balls, who scrapped home in his Morley seat at the election, the most loyal commander left in the Brown bunker. He has shown himself to be a bulldog and would be an opportunistic fighter for Labour in opposition; just what they need in many ways. However despite this he doesn't look like the next Prime Minister. He may well have secured himself the Shadow Home Secretary position as a reward for having such a good leadership campaign.
And so to Andy Burnham - the frontline candidate whom we knew least about before this election. He's impressed me as the man who speaks in normal language and with a normal tone of voice. He represents his home constituency and has been loyal through-and-through. He has been leading the debate with ideas (not that I agree with them, of course, but at least he's brave enough to put them forward). He seems at ease, handles pressure well and has stayed above the Mili-spats going on. I am impressed and would be much more concerned if he led Labour than any of the others.
Having said that - to be frank I don't think any of them look like election winners. One Labour activist said to me at the count on Thursday that when Hague fought Clarke and IDS fought Clarke, they prayed for the leader most likely to screw up the Tories. Was I, he asked, doing the same for Labour? No, I replied, whoever wins the Labour crown then Cameron is still sure to win the next election. For us, it's a win-win-win-win-win situation. But if Labour activists were to take any advice from an old Tory lag like me, to make the best fist of the next parliament - it has to be Andy Burnham.
In choosing between FPTP and AV, do I vote for the system that will stop STV?
As a politics teacher I am looking forward to the AV referendum next year (although personally I wouldn't vote to have one; too expensive at this time). I don't yet know which way I will vote, but I am currently leaning towards the "No" side and one thing in particular has been tipping my view.
I am concerned that the people advocating AV are actually those who want full blown PR, which I am definitely against - this article on the Coffee House blog says it all, that all those chosen to push AV actually don't support it but another system.
Why would I vote for a system which may lead, in time, to a system I am totally opposed to?
I am concerned that the people advocating AV are actually those who want full blown PR, which I am definitely against - this article on the Coffee House blog says it all, that all those chosen to push AV actually don't support it but another system.
Why would I vote for a system which may lead, in time, to a system I am totally opposed to?
Friday, September 10, 2010
That's It - The End.
Well, the results from last night were pretty shocking and certainly a poor night for both coalition partners. Judging from the BBC, ITV and Archant reports I was certainly the story of the night. Sadly I lost my seat, by 46 votes, to Labour.
For the last week I had began to become convinced I would lose - and in case you think that is 20-20 hindsight I actually said this to Labour friends as well as my campaign team. Knocking on doors, although there were far fewer Labour voter than Tory ones, they were simply more motivated to vote. The low-turn out, the switch from LibDems to Labour, the campaign on cuts (which never mentioned where Labour would swing the axe, of course) were all factors. But as the sitting member you always look to yourself and your own personal role in the election. I have put my heart and soul into being a good ward councillor but clearly it wasn't enough.
To all those who are my friends in the community, the people who supported me in Bowthorpe and Earlham, to my colleague ward Councillors and to the hundreds who voted for me, I am personally very, very sorry.
Being a councillor has been a fantastic experience and I have got to contribute to the civil life of our City in ways that few ever get. I look back on the last 4 years with pride, but life moves on. I am lucky that I have a job I love and a young family to enjoy. I shall miss helping people in Bowthorpe and working for them (I had resisted being "emotional" until the emails and calls from residents I am helping or have helped started to come through) but I always said that I wanted more in my life than just politics.
I am sticking to that promise - starting today.
For the last week I had began to become convinced I would lose - and in case you think that is 20-20 hindsight I actually said this to Labour friends as well as my campaign team. Knocking on doors, although there were far fewer Labour voter than Tory ones, they were simply more motivated to vote. The low-turn out, the switch from LibDems to Labour, the campaign on cuts (which never mentioned where Labour would swing the axe, of course) were all factors. But as the sitting member you always look to yourself and your own personal role in the election. I have put my heart and soul into being a good ward councillor but clearly it wasn't enough.
To all those who are my friends in the community, the people who supported me in Bowthorpe and Earlham, to my colleague ward Councillors and to the hundreds who voted for me, I am personally very, very sorry.
Being a councillor has been a fantastic experience and I have got to contribute to the civil life of our City in ways that few ever get. I look back on the last 4 years with pride, but life moves on. I am lucky that I have a job I love and a young family to enjoy. I shall miss helping people in Bowthorpe and working for them (I had resisted being "emotional" until the emails and calls from residents I am helping or have helped started to come through) but I always said that I wanted more in my life than just politics.
I am sticking to that promise - starting today.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Vote
Thursday is by-election day - when 13 seats, and perhaps the future direction of the City - are decided. I know this election campaign hasn't exactly set the world on fire but it will make a difference here in the City.
Some parties are trying to convince you this is a referendum on the Coalition Government.
Some parties are trying to say its a county council election instead.
Some parties have some very choice figures to say only they can win here.
I say this - this is a City Council election, about City issues for City voters. Read the manifesto documents of the parties (the Conservatives one is here, for example) then make your decision.
But whatever you do - vote and vote for a positive reason.
I obviously hope that my record as a Councillor in the last 4 years will see me home in Bowthorpe but nothing can be taken for granted and we will fight every minute tomorrow for each and every vote.
Some parties are trying to convince you this is a referendum on the Coalition Government.
Some parties are trying to say its a county council election instead.
Some parties have some very choice figures to say only they can win here.
I say this - this is a City Council election, about City issues for City voters. Read the manifesto documents of the parties (the Conservatives one is here, for example) then make your decision.
But whatever you do - vote and vote for a positive reason.
I obviously hope that my record as a Councillor in the last 4 years will see me home in Bowthorpe but nothing can be taken for granted and we will fight every minute tomorrow for each and every vote.
Norwich Leaseholders Demand Connaught Inquiry
I don't usually reproduce comments from this blog but this one is well worth it, from Leaseholders Chairman Pauline Walton:
Leaseholders have been expressing concern about the management of this procurement project since it began in March last year.
We believe there Norwich Council has a case to answer for its failure to notice the state of Connaught's accounts in November last year, and adverse reporting by fund manager Tim Steer in mid-December. We believe that the Council was reckless in its appointment of Connaught on 10 February 2010, given the incredibly low bid price (30% lower than anyone else). We wonder whether its "due diligence exercise" really proved that this bid was affordable.
Morrison tried to warn this council immediately it knew it had lost the bid, but the Council pressed on.
Citizens of Norwich deserve better than this.
Now, with Connaught's social housing operation in administration, I presume we can look forward to another interim contract while the council has to go through a major expensive procurement process all over again.
Surely this warrants a public inquiry?
Pauline Walton
Chair, Norwich Leaseholders' Association
Personally I couldn't agree more - this has been a shambles and the point is that I don't know if the argument made by Mrs Walton is correct. An inquiry would sort that out. This all demonstrates the shambles of the way that Labour have run the City Council. There were warned ...
An inquiry is a good long term solution, but a vote to remove this Labour administration tomorrow is a better short term solution.
Leaseholders have been expressing concern about the management of this procurement project since it began in March last year.
We believe there Norwich Council has a case to answer for its failure to notice the state of Connaught's accounts in November last year, and adverse reporting by fund manager Tim Steer in mid-December. We believe that the Council was reckless in its appointment of Connaught on 10 February 2010, given the incredibly low bid price (30% lower than anyone else). We wonder whether its "due diligence exercise" really proved that this bid was affordable.
Morrison tried to warn this council immediately it knew it had lost the bid, but the Council pressed on.
Citizens of Norwich deserve better than this.
Now, with Connaught's social housing operation in administration, I presume we can look forward to another interim contract while the council has to go through a major expensive procurement process all over again.
Surely this warrants a public inquiry?
Pauline Walton
Chair, Norwich Leaseholders' Association
Personally I couldn't agree more - this has been a shambles and the point is that I don't know if the argument made by Mrs Walton is correct. An inquiry would sort that out. This all demonstrates the shambles of the way that Labour have run the City Council. There were warned ...
An inquiry is a good long term solution, but a vote to remove this Labour administration tomorrow is a better short term solution.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Connaught goes into Administration
The bad news for the staff and customers of Connaught was heavily trailed this morning and we now know that they have gone into administration (more here). This in, obviously, a very worrying time for both the 10,000 Connaught staff both here in Norwich and around the country and also for the tens of thousands who depend on their services.
There has been much concern expressed at Labour's handling of the Connaught contract, including from both City MPs Chloe Smith and Simon Wright, and also by the Conservative Group on the City Council. Questions were raised about the situation surrounding the Morrison bid, the "teething problems" at the beginning of the service and now the financial perils of the company. All along Labour have told us - don't worry, it'll be fine. There are, apparently, plans in place to ensure services do not suffer. I am not on the Council so I know no more than anybody else but Labour are going to have to make those plans public pretty soon.
This whole situation seems to have been handled very badly indeed. Was this contract ever robust enough? Labour have some big questions to ask - but residents on the doorstep tonight were rightly very concerned and many believed this incident was symptomatic of the way Labour have run City Hall.
No wonder Labour are desperate to turn a City by-election into a County election or General Election - because they are afraid of their own record in office.
There has been much concern expressed at Labour's handling of the Connaught contract, including from both City MPs Chloe Smith and Simon Wright, and also by the Conservative Group on the City Council. Questions were raised about the situation surrounding the Morrison bid, the "teething problems" at the beginning of the service and now the financial perils of the company. All along Labour have told us - don't worry, it'll be fine. There are, apparently, plans in place to ensure services do not suffer. I am not on the Council so I know no more than anybody else but Labour are going to have to make those plans public pretty soon.
This whole situation seems to have been handled very badly indeed. Was this contract ever robust enough? Labour have some big questions to ask - but residents on the doorstep tonight were rightly very concerned and many believed this incident was symptomatic of the way Labour have run City Hall.
No wonder Labour are desperate to turn a City by-election into a County election or General Election - because they are afraid of their own record in office.
Monday, September 06, 2010
Almost There
With polling day now just a few days away, I can report that I am absolutely shattered. Day-in-day-out campaigning - a mix of canvassing, leafleting and meeting residents groups is all coming to an end and on Thursday people will have their say.
I don't know if I'll have blogging time between then and now but this is just really say a big thank you to all those people in Bowthorpe and Earlham who have been so kind when we have called. Your support is greatly appreciated. Thanks also to those who have tramped the streets with me during these four weeks - plus those who have dished out the moral support!
This is an election nobody wanted but the result will shape our City for many years to come.
I don't know if I'll have blogging time between then and now but this is just really say a big thank you to all those people in Bowthorpe and Earlham who have been so kind when we have called. Your support is greatly appreciated. Thanks also to those who have tramped the streets with me during these four weeks - plus those who have dished out the moral support!
This is an election nobody wanted but the result will shape our City for many years to come.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Local media & Local democracy
Archant goes through good times and bad times when it comes to reporting local democracy and elections. Currently, under the present Editor and team, they are having a good time. Shaun Lowthorpe and Dan Grimmer are like the Statler and Waldorf of the City (there goes my favourable coverage) but are doing an excellent job. At the moment they are previewing 2 wards per day in the lead u to the poll. It's even better to see them coming off the fence and having a punt at who they think is in the game at the moment. So far they think the Conservatives will hold Bowthorpe, LibDems hold Eaton (just) and Labour to hold University. Lakenham is too-close-to-call. It's good to see pieces from all the candidates (except UKIP who failed to provide any copy) with then an opinion-style piece from the paper. When the first article about the elections appeared on page 57 of the EDP I did fear a lack of coverage, but this really is a good service to democracy. Well done, Archant.
Monday, August 30, 2010
What should the GOP strategy for the Senate be?
News of a poll - twittered by Tim Montgomery of ConservativeHome fame - which gave the Republicans a 10 point national lead over the Democrats has got me thinking. The 51-41 result would almost certainly wipe out the Presidents party majority in the House, but how close are they to losing the Senate as well? A bit of number crunching has helped.
This is a bumper year of contests including a couple of Special Elections to fill vacancies left both those who resigned to serve in the Obama administration. However the numbers in the Senate without these contest shows the ease by which the Democrats should hold firm; without a vote being cast there are:
Democrats 41
Republicans 21
These elections are from the class of '04, who saw their elections clash with that of President George W Bush. Hence most of the seats up for election are, in fact, Republican held.
Added to these numbers there are 11 very safe Republican states or candidates up for election - either in their solid Southern heartland (Alabama, Georgia Kansas), the Mid-West (Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Utah) or where the candidate means they will win (Arizona, New Hampshire - plus North Dakota and Ohio). That puts the numbers at democrats 41, Republicans 32.
Let's assume that the Democrats themselves do not make progress - but there are States where the Republicans cannot take victory for granted. In Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina & South Dakota their winning majority was less than 5% of the vote. In Oklahoma & South Carolina it was less than 10%. Assuming these States stay red, then the Senate is Democrat 41, Republican 39. Getting closer.
Now the fun states. Scott Brown, Special election winner from Massachusetts is up for re-election. He overturned the late, great Ted Kennedy's 39% margin to win that seat last year. The smart money is on him holiday on. We also have Louisiana where the Republican margin was greatly inflated by having 2 Democratic candidates on the ballot paper. This time with just one the GOP margin falls to just 8%, although you'd still put the mortgage on them holding on. Senate now Democrat 41, Republican 41.
Onto Pennsylvania - the seat of defector Arlen Spectre who quit the Republicans to join the Democrats. His margin of victory was 11% as a republican. He lost the Democratic primary and his replacement looks unlikely to repeat his success. In fact this State is likely to join the "safe R" column. That leaves us as Republican 42, Democrat 41 - without a single toss-up contest being decided.
We've had the safe Republican berths, so what about the Dems? Well, you'd be surprised if any of the following seats were in play (number refers to D winning margin) - Connecticut (34%) , Delaware (29), Hawaii (55), Illinois (42), Maryland (31), New York (2 seats - 47 and 36), Vermont (46). That's 8 seats, without breaking sweat. Senate now Democrat 49, Republican 42.
So the Democrats need just one of the following swing States for half and two for a majority. Four States and they wouldn't have to rely on the votes of Independent members.
Some States are surely lost - it's hard to see the Dems holding on in Colorado (5%) or even Arkansas (11), Washington (12) or Wisconsin (11). That would be Democrat 49, Republican 46.
What's left? the winning margin in West Virginia was 31%, in Oreagon 32%, Nevada 26% and Indiana 24%. All of those should be in play given the latest polls. And that leaves California - which despite a relatively low 20% margin is so solidly Democratic it couldn't be any other way ... could it?
So the chances of the Reps taking the Senate are very very low but only because of the electoral cycle they face. But the result could be squeaky bum time for the Pres and still leave him hanging by the votes of a few independent members.
UPDATE: Rasmussen, the respected US pollster also has the figures of D49, R46 with 5 toss-ups (I didn't look - honest) but disagrees about which states. West Virgina it thinks is OK for the Dems despite the Reps whittling the poll lead down to just 6%. It also thinks Delaware is heading for a GOP victory. It's toss-up seats are Colorado, Illinois, California, Nevada and Wisconsin. For what its worth if the Reps don't take Colorado they're in trouble - but if the Dems don't take California or Delaware the same is true!
This is a bumper year of contests including a couple of Special Elections to fill vacancies left both those who resigned to serve in the Obama administration. However the numbers in the Senate without these contest shows the ease by which the Democrats should hold firm; without a vote being cast there are:
Democrats 41
Republicans 21
These elections are from the class of '04, who saw their elections clash with that of President George W Bush. Hence most of the seats up for election are, in fact, Republican held.
Added to these numbers there are 11 very safe Republican states or candidates up for election - either in their solid Southern heartland (Alabama, Georgia Kansas), the Mid-West (Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Utah) or where the candidate means they will win (Arizona, New Hampshire - plus North Dakota and Ohio). That puts the numbers at democrats 41, Republicans 32.
Let's assume that the Democrats themselves do not make progress - but there are States where the Republicans cannot take victory for granted. In Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina & South Dakota their winning majority was less than 5% of the vote. In Oklahoma & South Carolina it was less than 10%. Assuming these States stay red, then the Senate is Democrat 41, Republican 39. Getting closer.
Now the fun states. Scott Brown, Special election winner from Massachusetts is up for re-election. He overturned the late, great Ted Kennedy's 39% margin to win that seat last year. The smart money is on him holiday on. We also have Louisiana where the Republican margin was greatly inflated by having 2 Democratic candidates on the ballot paper. This time with just one the GOP margin falls to just 8%, although you'd still put the mortgage on them holding on. Senate now Democrat 41, Republican 41.
Onto Pennsylvania - the seat of defector Arlen Spectre who quit the Republicans to join the Democrats. His margin of victory was 11% as a republican. He lost the Democratic primary and his replacement looks unlikely to repeat his success. In fact this State is likely to join the "safe R" column. That leaves us as Republican 42, Democrat 41 - without a single toss-up contest being decided.
We've had the safe Republican berths, so what about the Dems? Well, you'd be surprised if any of the following seats were in play (number refers to D winning margin) - Connecticut (34%) , Delaware (29), Hawaii (55), Illinois (42), Maryland (31), New York (2 seats - 47 and 36), Vermont (46). That's 8 seats, without breaking sweat. Senate now Democrat 49, Republican 42.
So the Democrats need just one of the following swing States for half and two for a majority. Four States and they wouldn't have to rely on the votes of Independent members.
Some States are surely lost - it's hard to see the Dems holding on in Colorado (5%) or even Arkansas (11), Washington (12) or Wisconsin (11). That would be Democrat 49, Republican 46.
What's left? the winning margin in West Virginia was 31%, in Oreagon 32%, Nevada 26% and Indiana 24%. All of those should be in play given the latest polls. And that leaves California - which despite a relatively low 20% margin is so solidly Democratic it couldn't be any other way ... could it?
So the chances of the Reps taking the Senate are very very low but only because of the electoral cycle they face. But the result could be squeaky bum time for the Pres and still leave him hanging by the votes of a few independent members.
UPDATE: Rasmussen, the respected US pollster also has the figures of D49, R46 with 5 toss-ups (I didn't look - honest) but disagrees about which states. West Virgina it thinks is OK for the Dems despite the Reps whittling the poll lead down to just 6%. It also thinks Delaware is heading for a GOP victory. It's toss-up seats are Colorado, Illinois, California, Nevada and Wisconsin. For what its worth if the Reps don't take Colorado they're in trouble - but if the Dems don't take California or Delaware the same is true!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)