For a number of months now, the British Labour Party has been going through a leadership contest. It has more than a whiff of American presidentialism about it, with the focus on how the leaders would take the party back to power (an interesting, modern choice of words. Once upon a time, it was about being in office, not in power). Perhaps not coincidentally, given America's mood for Trump and Sanders at the moment, the comfortable front-runner for the Labour leadership is a man called Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn is more-or-less the antithesis of Tony Blair. Labour has been inching this way since Blair's retirement. But Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband tried to offer a kind of balanced approach, accepting much of the basic economic policy in particular that New Labour embraced, and then trying to retrofit 'socialist' ideas into that framework.
Corbyn offers no such thing. He is passionate, he is internally consistent, and he loathes much of modern politics. He is doggedly anti-austerity, which will serve him well if(/when) the UK economy collapses. The unions like him, as they see him as the last of the old Labour union men. The people seem to like him too, partly for his ideology and partly for his honesty and personality.
This is also a big problem for the top dogs within the Labour Party. According to them, politics works on a left/right scale, and the way to win power is to be able to be 'electable' by grabbing as much of the 'middle ground' as possible. That is, after all, what New Labour did, and it worked. But they also recognise that the name of New Labour has been muddied as history has examined it more closely, and that the electorate isn't that interested in another Blair. Therefore, the party leadership wants someone who is not quite New Labour, but still close enough not to scare away modern Conservative voters.
Their favoured options are therefore Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham. Neither offers anything particularly interesting, either in policy or leadership, with Cooper being particularly difficult to grasp. But both are considered safe options because of the blandness they present, and the two were considered the favourites after the candidates were announced. Liz Kendall is the fourth option, considered the smokey to begin with and now believed to have no chance. Kendall was quite happy to present herself as the continuation of New Labour, seemingly unaware of the damage that would cause her. She will finish last.
And then there is Corbyn. Corbyn is not 'electable'. According to the Labour apparatchiks, he is 'hard left'. His economic policies are meant to be unworkable, and his leadership will apparently destroy Labour and, thereafter, the entire country. At the start of the campaign, his odds of winning were 100/1. They are now 1/2.
It seems that the Labour membership does not actually care what their leadership has to say. They see that Labour has lost the last two elections by presenting a plan of nothingness, and that their party now stands for very little. They want their party back, and are responding to the man who is offering that. This is quite remarkable in and of itself, but what is just as remarkable has been the response of the Labour big wigs.
Tony Blair got it all started by suggesting that Labour would be 'annihilated' if Corbyn won. Since then, prominent figures past and present, such as Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, Alastair Campbell, David Milliband, Harriet Harman, the vast majority of Labour MPs who think one of the other candidates would be better and Gordon Brown (without naming Corbyn directly.)
This speaks of an enormous political disconnect. Remember, MPs are supposed to be representative - that is, the represent the people of their electorates. And if they are a member of a party, it presumably because they believe in the ideology that the party supports. If Corbyn, a man who both has support of the people and holds to a clear ideology that is meant to be that of Labour, also has a very small proportion of sitting Labour MPs on his side, what does that say about the Labour Party?
So, as Corbyn's first preference polling has now hit over 50%, the other candidates are now turning on each other with each suggesting, publicly or privately, that one of the others should resign, so they can take on Corbyn head-to-head. Meanwhile, while they're all attacking each other, Corbyn continues to tour the country, talking to packed meeting halls about his beliefs.
The UK, and indeed much of the Western world, is currently in a societal deadlock. Corbyn is, if nothing else, someone who can help break the deadlock, one way or another. Perhaps this is what Labour is so afraid of.
Showing posts with label british politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label british politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, 18 August 2015
Saturday, 16 May 2015
The struggle for UKIP
Losing an election is never a nice feeling, and it's no great surprise that political parties tend to go through mini-revolutions following election losses. UKIP appears to be no different - and, being UKIP, it has naturally been magnified by absolutely everyone.
UKIP faces two fundamental issues, one short term and one long term. The first struggle is that of leadership. Calling Nigel Farage the face of UKIP feels like an understatement, so large is the imprint he has on the party. However, the circumstances of his non-resignation have brought murmurings of discontent from some quarters. Did he do the right thing? Should he have stepped down anyway? Who would take over? Is he the right leader at this point in time? All these questions have been addressed in a myriad of different ways, sometimes without the careful forethought required when asking these questions publicly.
The Farage question is particularly important given the possibility of the EU referendum being held in a year from now, rather than two or three. UKIP, who would no doubt be spearheading the out campaign, needs to be campaigning for that result fairly soon if that is the case, which means their leader is going to need a lot of energy. Whether Farage has the energy, and the ability to convince undecideds, is an important issue. There's no doubt Farage would dearly like a holiday, but now it looks as though he'll get no such thing - unless others in the party force him to.
The other problem with leadership is that it tends to affect the future of the party well after the leader has gone. Nick Clegg's coalition decision may well mean years in the wilderness for the Liberal Democrats. If Farage takes the party in the wrong direction, it could all have been for naught.
This brings about the second, probably more important struggle. It is one of ideology. What is it that UKIP believes and stands for?
The primary goal of UKIP is to leave the European Union. That has been the case from day dot. But that single belief spans every direction of the political spectrum, and the populism that Farage has so expertly promoted has resulted in large swathes of members joining the party with vastly different beliefs to each other. As long as the EU is an issue, this will only bubble beneath the surface. But the current leadership dilemma has already resulted in some internal comments that UKIP faces an ideological split.
While Farage and MP Douglas Carswell are broadly speaking libertarians (the kind of people who would've joined the Liberal Party before its awkward ideological merger with the Social Democrats), many in the party are not. Some amongst them are classic conservatives who recognise the importance of the European Union in deciding British policy, and are railing against it until the UK returns to being independent from the EU. In this way they often also seek to restore and celebrate British culture. Others are old Labour voters, frustrated by their dislocation from the Labour party of today, a party that has accepted the basics tenets of neoliberalism and mass immigration without seeming to care than their old base were the ones most affected by the changes these policies brought about. Others still are social conservatives who are also concerned with the same issues as old Labour - for lack of a better word, communitarians.
As it stands today, UKIP has members from all corners of the political spectrum, all of which can argue to best represent the ideology the party should embody. But in the long run, it's difficult to see them all working together perpetually. There are too many ideological differences to overcome once the EU issue is decided. At least, there are if UKIP intends to be a major party at some point, which they undoubtedly should.
Most likely is that either the libertarians or the communitarians will win out. Of course, the fact that these two ideologies are more or less opposite to each other makes it difficult to see how there wouldn't be a large split at some point. The Liberal Democrats at least have some similarities between the classic liberals and social democrats that make up the party.
In any case, UKIP should be a considerable figure in British politics for the forseeable future. If they fail, they will have done a great disservice to politics in the United Kingdom, for right now they stand, above all, as the party of the people.
UKIP faces two fundamental issues, one short term and one long term. The first struggle is that of leadership. Calling Nigel Farage the face of UKIP feels like an understatement, so large is the imprint he has on the party. However, the circumstances of his non-resignation have brought murmurings of discontent from some quarters. Did he do the right thing? Should he have stepped down anyway? Who would take over? Is he the right leader at this point in time? All these questions have been addressed in a myriad of different ways, sometimes without the careful forethought required when asking these questions publicly.
The Farage question is particularly important given the possibility of the EU referendum being held in a year from now, rather than two or three. UKIP, who would no doubt be spearheading the out campaign, needs to be campaigning for that result fairly soon if that is the case, which means their leader is going to need a lot of energy. Whether Farage has the energy, and the ability to convince undecideds, is an important issue. There's no doubt Farage would dearly like a holiday, but now it looks as though he'll get no such thing - unless others in the party force him to.
The other problem with leadership is that it tends to affect the future of the party well after the leader has gone. Nick Clegg's coalition decision may well mean years in the wilderness for the Liberal Democrats. If Farage takes the party in the wrong direction, it could all have been for naught.
This brings about the second, probably more important struggle. It is one of ideology. What is it that UKIP believes and stands for?
The primary goal of UKIP is to leave the European Union. That has been the case from day dot. But that single belief spans every direction of the political spectrum, and the populism that Farage has so expertly promoted has resulted in large swathes of members joining the party with vastly different beliefs to each other. As long as the EU is an issue, this will only bubble beneath the surface. But the current leadership dilemma has already resulted in some internal comments that UKIP faces an ideological split.
While Farage and MP Douglas Carswell are broadly speaking libertarians (the kind of people who would've joined the Liberal Party before its awkward ideological merger with the Social Democrats), many in the party are not. Some amongst them are classic conservatives who recognise the importance of the European Union in deciding British policy, and are railing against it until the UK returns to being independent from the EU. In this way they often also seek to restore and celebrate British culture. Others are old Labour voters, frustrated by their dislocation from the Labour party of today, a party that has accepted the basics tenets of neoliberalism and mass immigration without seeming to care than their old base were the ones most affected by the changes these policies brought about. Others still are social conservatives who are also concerned with the same issues as old Labour - for lack of a better word, communitarians.
As it stands today, UKIP has members from all corners of the political spectrum, all of which can argue to best represent the ideology the party should embody. But in the long run, it's difficult to see them all working together perpetually. There are too many ideological differences to overcome once the EU issue is decided. At least, there are if UKIP intends to be a major party at some point, which they undoubtedly should.
Most likely is that either the libertarians or the communitarians will win out. Of course, the fact that these two ideologies are more or less opposite to each other makes it difficult to see how there wouldn't be a large split at some point. The Liberal Democrats at least have some similarities between the classic liberals and social democrats that make up the party.
In any case, UKIP should be a considerable figure in British politics for the forseeable future. If they fail, they will have done a great disservice to politics in the United Kingdom, for right now they stand, above all, as the party of the people.
Saturday, 9 May 2015
The story of the Liberal Demolition
When the exit poll came through on Thursday night, telling us that the Liberal Democrats would only win ten seats, no-one could quite believe it. Paddy Ashdown was so surprised by the prediction that he promised he would eat his hat were it true.
After all, the pollsters has been speculating for months that the Lib Dems would end up with between 25 and 30 seats. Surely the Lib Dem support wouldn't totally collapse in so many of their seats.
In the end, the exit poll wasn't quite right. The Lib Dems ended up with eight seats, their worst result since the Liberal Party earned six seats in 1970. There was no favour for incumbents, not even for long standing MPs, or those serving in the Cabinet.
Vince Cable is gone. Danny Alexander is gone. Ed Davey, Simon Hughes, David Laws and 44 others are all out the door, punished by the electorate for their party's role in government. Those that are left are spread around the country. There's one in six of the nine regions of England, along with one in Wales and one in Scotland, the latter being the old Liberal territory of Orkney and Shetland. The region generally regarded as the closest thing the Liberals had to a region of their own, the South West, now is entirely blue with a little bit of red.
Nick Clegg, one of the few survivors, has quit the leadership. Tim Farron is tipped to be the next leader, purely because he's the only one that many are familiar with. With a Conservative majority government, and a dominant SNP, the Lib Dems have little relevance inside the Commons, and with 1.4 million less votes than UKIP, not much relevance outside it.
How did it all come to this?
A loss of seats was inevitable. The Lib Dems have long been a party that has to work harder to get seats that the big two, so when their polling fell it was guaranteed that their seat loss would be fairly large. But the pollsters still thought there would be an incumbency effect, and that the high profile Lib Dems would just hold on. This was based on specific Ashcroft polling, which indicated that the overall perception of Lib Dems was worse across the country that it was in Lib Dem held seats that looked like becoming marginal.
As fivethirtyeight has explained, incumbency did not matter. Predictions that used the broad Lib Dem numbers proved much closer to reality, but no-one made them. What this does suggest is that the electorate's dismay with the Lib Dems was greater than any personal support they felt for their local member.
Why?
The other thing to keep in mind is that the Lib Dem's support over the years has been built on a small base and a significant protest vote. People that vote for the Lib Dems in one election have historically been likely to move to one of the other major parties, with those voters being replaced in the Lib Dem support base by other disaffected voters. The Lib Dems did not attract any of this support this time around, as they were now a party of government with the Conservatives, annoying traditional voters of both major parties for different reasons. Beyond their core of 8%, voters had no reason to pick them as the protest vote.
Traditional Labour voters went back to a Labour party that appealed to them, attempting to ditch the image of New Labour. Traditional Conservative voters had no reason to vote for the minor member of a coalition that had prevented the Tories from making certain policy decisions, and shifting voters felt similarly. Disaffected voters now had one other significant option: UKIP. UKIP made sure everyone knew that they weren't simply attracting old Tories - they were attracting old Labour too. Finally, the SNP and the Greens presented a reputable alternative to Labour for those annoyed at the Lib Dems for enabling a Conservative government. Other than classic and social liberals, what reason was there to vote Lib Dem?
Their campaign tried to emphasise their ability to be a coalition partner with either of the major parties, but in the end voters preferred having a majority government (though not by much). The reputation of the Lib Dems suffered so much from the controversial government decision on tuition fees, and the appearance of going along with the Tories budget decisions, that any hope of appealing to voters beyond their core base completely vanished years ago.
It's now a long road back to appealing to the electorate. First, they have to figure out who they are. One potential saving grace for them is that we may be near the end of first past the post, which may give them a way back in. But even then, that is unlikely to expand their base, which they need to do if they ever want to revive the cause of liberalism as being truly significant in modern Britain.
After all, the pollsters has been speculating for months that the Lib Dems would end up with between 25 and 30 seats. Surely the Lib Dem support wouldn't totally collapse in so many of their seats.
In the end, the exit poll wasn't quite right. The Lib Dems ended up with eight seats, their worst result since the Liberal Party earned six seats in 1970. There was no favour for incumbents, not even for long standing MPs, or those serving in the Cabinet.
Vince Cable is gone. Danny Alexander is gone. Ed Davey, Simon Hughes, David Laws and 44 others are all out the door, punished by the electorate for their party's role in government. Those that are left are spread around the country. There's one in six of the nine regions of England, along with one in Wales and one in Scotland, the latter being the old Liberal territory of Orkney and Shetland. The region generally regarded as the closest thing the Liberals had to a region of their own, the South West, now is entirely blue with a little bit of red.
Nick Clegg, one of the few survivors, has quit the leadership. Tim Farron is tipped to be the next leader, purely because he's the only one that many are familiar with. With a Conservative majority government, and a dominant SNP, the Lib Dems have little relevance inside the Commons, and with 1.4 million less votes than UKIP, not much relevance outside it.
How did it all come to this?
A loss of seats was inevitable. The Lib Dems have long been a party that has to work harder to get seats that the big two, so when their polling fell it was guaranteed that their seat loss would be fairly large. But the pollsters still thought there would be an incumbency effect, and that the high profile Lib Dems would just hold on. This was based on specific Ashcroft polling, which indicated that the overall perception of Lib Dems was worse across the country that it was in Lib Dem held seats that looked like becoming marginal.
As fivethirtyeight has explained, incumbency did not matter. Predictions that used the broad Lib Dem numbers proved much closer to reality, but no-one made them. What this does suggest is that the electorate's dismay with the Lib Dems was greater than any personal support they felt for their local member.
Why?
The other thing to keep in mind is that the Lib Dem's support over the years has been built on a small base and a significant protest vote. People that vote for the Lib Dems in one election have historically been likely to move to one of the other major parties, with those voters being replaced in the Lib Dem support base by other disaffected voters. The Lib Dems did not attract any of this support this time around, as they were now a party of government with the Conservatives, annoying traditional voters of both major parties for different reasons. Beyond their core of 8%, voters had no reason to pick them as the protest vote.
Traditional Labour voters went back to a Labour party that appealed to them, attempting to ditch the image of New Labour. Traditional Conservative voters had no reason to vote for the minor member of a coalition that had prevented the Tories from making certain policy decisions, and shifting voters felt similarly. Disaffected voters now had one other significant option: UKIP. UKIP made sure everyone knew that they weren't simply attracting old Tories - they were attracting old Labour too. Finally, the SNP and the Greens presented a reputable alternative to Labour for those annoyed at the Lib Dems for enabling a Conservative government. Other than classic and social liberals, what reason was there to vote Lib Dem?
Their campaign tried to emphasise their ability to be a coalition partner with either of the major parties, but in the end voters preferred having a majority government (though not by much). The reputation of the Lib Dems suffered so much from the controversial government decision on tuition fees, and the appearance of going along with the Tories budget decisions, that any hope of appealing to voters beyond their core base completely vanished years ago.
It's now a long road back to appealing to the electorate. First, they have to figure out who they are. One potential saving grace for them is that we may be near the end of first past the post, which may give them a way back in. But even then, that is unlikely to expand their base, which they need to do if they ever want to revive the cause of liberalism as being truly significant in modern Britain.
Thursday, 7 May 2015
D-Day for the UK
Elections can be mixed events. Election junkies, for lack of a better term, spend weeks in fascination as the now-daily polls come in, gauging the mood of the electorate. Sometimes, this can lead up to an exciting election with close polls. Other times, it leads to a straightforward affair with one party clearly dominating. This has especially been the case in two-party democracies - basically the entire English speaking world.
The last UK election threw a spanner in the works by forcing a coalition to be made, something their continental European cousins are very much used to. Now the next UK general election is upon us, and things are looking even less clear, and therefore even more interesting. Labour and the Conservatives are basically tied in the national polls, and three minor parties are polling between 15 and 5%. The Scottish Nationalists are on track to win all but a few Scottish seats. The only certainty seems to be that everything is very uncertain.
This is not due to a particularly inspiring campaign from all sides. Quite the opposite, actually, with every party - especially the older ones - seeking to stage manage the weeks running up to the vote as much as possible. The entire western world seems increasingly disconnected with politics, and this theme was writ large throughout the campaign, being brought up by both the media (who are partly at fault for the disconnection in the first place) and the public.
The work of Lord Ashcroft in getting individual electorate polling going throughout the campaign, at his own expense and to sate his own curiosity, has added a useful dimension to the campaign. Unlike in a multi-member proportional parliament, single member districts each come with their own unique situation, and often those situation weren't spelt out until the election had already happened. Being able to track the closeness of individual key seats has made predictions more accurate...we think.
Polling is a notoriously complex dilemma, if for no other reason than we don't know what impact they have on people's decisions. Nevertheless, in theory they have been of great value. We shall have to wait and see how true that turns out to be.
Just as interesting as the result is what happens afterwards. Should it turn out to be the multi-party parliament it promises to be, beholden to the SNP, figuring out who governs may take far longer than the British are used to. The most likely scenario, though, given Labour's strategy, is that a Labour/Lib Dem coalition governs with the SNP given them confidence. This allows them to have a plurality over the larger Tories, thus giving them 'legitimacy', which has been another big question over the past month. What role UKIP can play remains to be seen. Labour and the Lib Dems are uneasy with the idea of a referendum on leaving the EU, and the Conservatives can wipe their hands of it should they not take office.
So, with that, here's my mostly unprofessional and full of guessing prediction:
Conservatives: 276
Labour: 264
Liberal Democrats: 29
UKIP: 4
SNP: 54
Green: 1
Other: 22
Whatever happens, what will be confirmed is that the people have had enough of two-party politics. It is up to each party to earn the respect and support of the people by listening to them. UKIP and the SNP have both done this, albeit in different ways. The others will need to do similar in the future.
The last UK election threw a spanner in the works by forcing a coalition to be made, something their continental European cousins are very much used to. Now the next UK general election is upon us, and things are looking even less clear, and therefore even more interesting. Labour and the Conservatives are basically tied in the national polls, and three minor parties are polling between 15 and 5%. The Scottish Nationalists are on track to win all but a few Scottish seats. The only certainty seems to be that everything is very uncertain.
This is not due to a particularly inspiring campaign from all sides. Quite the opposite, actually, with every party - especially the older ones - seeking to stage manage the weeks running up to the vote as much as possible. The entire western world seems increasingly disconnected with politics, and this theme was writ large throughout the campaign, being brought up by both the media (who are partly at fault for the disconnection in the first place) and the public.
The work of Lord Ashcroft in getting individual electorate polling going throughout the campaign, at his own expense and to sate his own curiosity, has added a useful dimension to the campaign. Unlike in a multi-member proportional parliament, single member districts each come with their own unique situation, and often those situation weren't spelt out until the election had already happened. Being able to track the closeness of individual key seats has made predictions more accurate...we think.
Polling is a notoriously complex dilemma, if for no other reason than we don't know what impact they have on people's decisions. Nevertheless, in theory they have been of great value. We shall have to wait and see how true that turns out to be.
Just as interesting as the result is what happens afterwards. Should it turn out to be the multi-party parliament it promises to be, beholden to the SNP, figuring out who governs may take far longer than the British are used to. The most likely scenario, though, given Labour's strategy, is that a Labour/Lib Dem coalition governs with the SNP given them confidence. This allows them to have a plurality over the larger Tories, thus giving them 'legitimacy', which has been another big question over the past month. What role UKIP can play remains to be seen. Labour and the Lib Dems are uneasy with the idea of a referendum on leaving the EU, and the Conservatives can wipe their hands of it should they not take office.
So, with that, here's my mostly unprofessional and full of guessing prediction:
Conservatives: 276
Labour: 264
Liberal Democrats: 29
UKIP: 4
SNP: 54
Green: 1
Other: 22
Whatever happens, what will be confirmed is that the people have had enough of two-party politics. It is up to each party to earn the respect and support of the people by listening to them. UKIP and the SNP have both done this, albeit in different ways. The others will need to do similar in the future.
Friday, 1 May 2015
The strategy behind Labour's rejection of the SNP
During his grilling on Question Time, Ed Miliband once again flatly denied the possibility of Labour forming a government with the Scottish National Party, whether it be a coalition or a 'deal'.
Now he has confirmed that Labour is taking a similar approach to Plaid Cymru.
This, on the surface, seems like a poor position to take. Labour is highly unlikely to gain a majority on its own, and the direction of the polls is such that it's unlikely a Labour + Liberal Democrat coalition would have enough seats either. A prospective Labour government will need these at least one of these nationalist, social democratic parties onside. Neither of these parties even wants to consider a Conservative government, and both have offered Labour the possibility of a deal.
Yet Ed Miliband says no. Why?
Well, consider the two regions in question. Scotland is in the midst of deep nationalist sentiment, but the sentiment felt now got underway with Thatcherism, which obliterated the Scottish Conservatives. Labour has had a stranglehold on the nation for decades, along with a relatively strong Liberal undercurrent. The Conservatives hold only one seat in the country, and aren't going to be winning more. The problem for Labour is that the SNP have successfully connected independence with their party, and are riding the nationalist wave over Labour's majority. The SNP are on track to win up to 50 seats in Scotland, leaving Labour and the Lib Dems fighting for the scraps. Wales has not quite the same national fervour, despite Plaid Cymru's best efforts, but it is still a Labour stronghold. In both cases, Labour is desperate to hold on to as many seats as possible, as they look to maximise their English gains.
So where is the logic behind denying the possibility of a deal with these parties? It seems that Labour's strategy is to implore voters to come back to Labour, and away from the nationalists, because Labour can guarantee stability, and can guarantee that the Tories won't come back. The constituencies for Labour and the nationalists are much the same, and their policies are much the same. The problem for Labour is that nationalism is winning over enough of the population to make Labour look unattractive by comparison. Nicola Sturgeon's party has used public sentiment enormously well, and is presumably fairly confident of being the king maker in the Commons.
This may also explain the other reason for Labour's denials. They are sure that the Conservatives can't possibly form a coalition, and want to try to use this seat maximising policy for as long as the can, knowing they'll get into government anyway. If that does turn out to be the case, though, they'll have forgotten that lying to voters isn't generally a good way to stay in power, and is especially not a good way to start. To promise that they won't deal with the SNP or Plaid Cymru, only to turn around and do so immediately after the polls close, would immediately attach the word 'untrustworthy' to a party that can ill afford it.
After all, what was the primary focus of the questions on Question Time towards the party leaders?
It was, quite simply, trust.
Now he has confirmed that Labour is taking a similar approach to Plaid Cymru.
This, on the surface, seems like a poor position to take. Labour is highly unlikely to gain a majority on its own, and the direction of the polls is such that it's unlikely a Labour + Liberal Democrat coalition would have enough seats either. A prospective Labour government will need these at least one of these nationalist, social democratic parties onside. Neither of these parties even wants to consider a Conservative government, and both have offered Labour the possibility of a deal.
Yet Ed Miliband says no. Why?
Well, consider the two regions in question. Scotland is in the midst of deep nationalist sentiment, but the sentiment felt now got underway with Thatcherism, which obliterated the Scottish Conservatives. Labour has had a stranglehold on the nation for decades, along with a relatively strong Liberal undercurrent. The Conservatives hold only one seat in the country, and aren't going to be winning more. The problem for Labour is that the SNP have successfully connected independence with their party, and are riding the nationalist wave over Labour's majority. The SNP are on track to win up to 50 seats in Scotland, leaving Labour and the Lib Dems fighting for the scraps. Wales has not quite the same national fervour, despite Plaid Cymru's best efforts, but it is still a Labour stronghold. In both cases, Labour is desperate to hold on to as many seats as possible, as they look to maximise their English gains.
So where is the logic behind denying the possibility of a deal with these parties? It seems that Labour's strategy is to implore voters to come back to Labour, and away from the nationalists, because Labour can guarantee stability, and can guarantee that the Tories won't come back. The constituencies for Labour and the nationalists are much the same, and their policies are much the same. The problem for Labour is that nationalism is winning over enough of the population to make Labour look unattractive by comparison. Nicola Sturgeon's party has used public sentiment enormously well, and is presumably fairly confident of being the king maker in the Commons.
This may also explain the other reason for Labour's denials. They are sure that the Conservatives can't possibly form a coalition, and want to try to use this seat maximising policy for as long as the can, knowing they'll get into government anyway. If that does turn out to be the case, though, they'll have forgotten that lying to voters isn't generally a good way to stay in power, and is especially not a good way to start. To promise that they won't deal with the SNP or Plaid Cymru, only to turn around and do so immediately after the polls close, would immediately attach the word 'untrustworthy' to a party that can ill afford it.
After all, what was the primary focus of the questions on Question Time towards the party leaders?
It was, quite simply, trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)