Last night's by-election result in Eastleigh was unquestionably a calamity for David Cameron and the Conservative Party.
Former leadership contender David Davis had earlier warned the Prime Minister that coming third in Eastleigh would be a disaster for the Tories and plunge the Party into crisis.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9897845/Losing-to-Ukip-in-Eastleigh-would-cause-crisis-for-Tories-says-David-Davis.html
But Mr Cameron was very quick to dismiss the outcome as a 'protest' vote and and insisted this was nothing more than mid-term blues. http://news.sky.com/story/1058520/eastleigh-lib-dems-win-tories-fall-to-third. In the wake of what was a terrible result for them and candidate Maria Hutchings, he rejected calls for the party to change direction and lurch to the right; a position that was swiftly supported by Education Secretary Michael Gove.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9902155/David-Cameron-No-lurch-to-the-right-following-Eastleigh-result.html
However, the surprisingly spectacular performance of UKIP, coming a very close second to Liberal Democrat victor Mike Thornton, has to be a huge worry for the Tories. The Hampshire seat is one which they must take back in 2015 to have any chance of winning an overall majority.
Given the closeness of the result, the fact that Diane James didn't actually snatch the Eastleigh seat for UKIP, could be attributed solely to the Party's failure to secure those vital few extra postal votes needed to ensure victory - a point that leader Nigel Farage immediately acknowledged. Had they done so, then UKIP's first member of Parliament might just have been on their way to Westminster right now.
So what went wrong for the Tories?
David Cameron's pledge to hold a referendum on whether Britain should leave the EU after the next election has obviously not appeased the voters sufficiently for them to return a Conservative MP to Eastleigh for the first time in nearly 20 years. The massive increase in support for UKIP in recent months is reflected in the fact that most UK voters want a referendum sooner rather than later and none of the three main parties are offering this to the British people. It will be no surprise at all if, UKIP continue to gain this degree of momentum between now and the next election, they do win seats in 2015. Indeed, the Conservatives would be very foolish to dismiss them as purely a party of protest. UKIP clearly are a serious threat to David Cameron and his Party.
http://news.sky.com/story/1058779/eastleigh-flamboyant-farage-is-on-the-march
The loss of Britain's AAA credit-rating will almost certainly had a hand in the result, despite the Prime Minister's lame attempts to play it down at this week's PMQs. Voters could very well be beginning to question George Osborne's handling of the economy, despite his absolute insistence that the Coalition must not change course and stick to its program of austerity to bring Britain's deficit down. Indeed, as the UK edges closer to 2015, it will become increasingly difficult for the Prime Minister and Chancellor to avoid taking responsibility for the course of the economy. The next Budget is now just a few weeks away, and will be absolutely crucial if Mr Osborne is to show that he has the political nous to turn things around.http://news.sky.com/story/1055980/osborne-needs-to-show-he-has-got-a-grip
A more troubling issue for the Tories is that a pledge to protect Britain's AAA rating was a central plank of their Party's manifesto at the last general election. Failure to keep this promise is a devastating illustration of economic incompetence on the part of George Osborne and David Cameron. Having already presided over a double-dip recession, they will have a much more difficult job, between now and the next election, convincing people that it is they, and not the Opposition, who still have the right prescription for dealing with the UK's huge economic problems come the next time this country goes to the polls.
The current state of the UK economy appears to have been a far more significant factor in determining the outcome of one of the most closely-watched by-elections in years than the recent woes of the Liberal Democrats.
Of course Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will be reflecting today on his Party holding on to the seat with a greatly-reduced majority. But it is local issues - and the popularity of the Lib Dem-run local council - that appear to have been uppermost in voters' minds, rather than the reason for the by-election itself; former MP and Cabinet Minister Chris Huhne's conviction for perverting the course of justice and his inevitable susequent resignation.
And the scandal over the alleged sexual impropriety of former Lib Dem Chief Executive Lord Rennard - with questions raised over whether Mr Clegg and other senior figures deliberately ignored the complaints of several female party workers on the receiving end of the peer's behaviour - did not prevent their man from claiming an extraordinary victory. http://news.sky.com/story/1057915/lord-rennard-several-call-police-hotline
For Labour, Eastleigh was never going to a winnable seat. But coming fourth will have been a very bitter pill to swallow. This result shows that they have an awful lot of work to do to attract the support from constituencies which are not in Labour heartlands they desperately need to win back power. Furthermore, the Party's cause will have definitely been undermined by their not having a local candidate and even further so by London resident John O'Farrell's disgraceful previous expression of sorrow that Margaret Thatcher was not killed in the 1984 Brighton Bomb. Ed Miliband's immediate refusal to unequivocally condemn these appalling remarks are further black marks against him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I1Bp3hiInE&feature=youtube_gdata
But it is definitely the Conservatives who have been left with the most to think about following this by-election. UKIP have shown they are listening to the British people in a way David Cameron's party, at present, clearly are not.
And, frankly, if the Tories cannot win seats like Eastleigh, they have no hope of a majority in 2015.
Friday 1 March 2013
Sunday 24 February 2013
More Embarrassment For Coalition As Eastleigh By-Election Looms
http://news.sky.com/story/1048142/gay-marriage-cameron-could-pay-a-heavy-price
http://news.sky.com/story/1056191/questions-for-clegg-over-lord-rennard-claims
There is no doubt that the forthcoming by-election in Eastleigh will be a two-horse race.
Ed Miliband and Labour know that the best they can hope for is to avoid the humiliation of coming fourth behind UKIP.
But David Cameron could very well pay the price for his support of gay marriage - which clearly has infuriated many of his backbenchers and Tory activists. And coming so soon after the ignominy of Britain losing its AAA-rating, the vote will be crucial in guaging the voters' verdict on George Osborne's handling of the economy thus far.
Up until now, polls have suggested that the Tories are ahead of Labour on who voters trust to handle the economy and that the electorate still blame the previous government for the current economic climate.
But Peter Kellner, head of polling company YouGov, speaking on the BBC this week, has intimated that the downgrading of Britain's economy could signal a 'blame-changer' and a turning-point in voters' perceptions of who is responsible for this country's continuing financial woes. http://dominicavibes.dm/news/uk-loses-top-aaa-credit-rating
After all, three years into this parliament, it is frankly lame for the Tories and the Liberal Democrats to keep harking back to the economic mess they had to clear up on coming into office. On Labour's departure in 2010, Britain was slowly starting to come out of recession and the current administration's strategy of making huge cuts in public spending at such a furious rate, has certainly not worked, with the UK entering a double-dip recession under their watch, and a third dip in the economy still very much a possibility.
And now, with Britain being stripped of their AAA rating, this could very well be reflected in the outcome of the Eastleigh by-election. It is just possible that its voters may reject the Tories' message and stick with the Liberal Democrats, who have held the seat since the bizarre death of Conservative incumbent Stephen Milligan in 1994.
On the other hand, the news that Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is now embroiled in a sex scandal could be very damaging for his party's prospects in Eastleigh.
The by-election was caused by the resignation of former Cabinet Minister Chris Huhne, who was forced to stand down following his conviction for perverting the cause of justice. He has pleaded guilty to charges that he persuaded his former wife, economist Vicky Price, to take his penalty points for a speeding offence in 2003.
Mr Huhne is now almost certainly facing a period in jail when he is sentenced in the coming weeks.
But to compound the embarrassment for the the Liberal Democrats, questions are now being asked about how much Mr Clegg knew about allegations of sexual harrassment levelled against the former Party Chief Executive Lord Rennard.
A Channel Four News investigation has revealed that, prior to his retirement on health grounds in 2009, the Party received complaints that the veteran peer had made improper sexual advances towards several female party workers.
Lord Rennard has strenuously denied any wrong-doing.
But is alleged that both Mr Clegg and Vince Cable, now Business Secretary, were made aware of the claims at the time. And the revelations have raised questions about internal disciplinary procedures within the Liberal Democratic Party machine.
However Mr Clegg's office is insisting that he and Mr Cable only gained knowlege of the Rennard affair when recently approached by Channel Four.
Even if the Lib Dems do hold on to the Hampshire seat, the breaking of this story just days before the voters in Eastleigh go to the polls, is hugely embarrasing for Nick Clegg.
And it is likely to run for some time yet.
http://news.sky.com/story/1056191/questions-for-clegg-over-lord-rennard-claims
There is no doubt that the forthcoming by-election in Eastleigh will be a two-horse race.
Ed Miliband and Labour know that the best they can hope for is to avoid the humiliation of coming fourth behind UKIP.
But David Cameron could very well pay the price for his support of gay marriage - which clearly has infuriated many of his backbenchers and Tory activists. And coming so soon after the ignominy of Britain losing its AAA-rating, the vote will be crucial in guaging the voters' verdict on George Osborne's handling of the economy thus far.
Up until now, polls have suggested that the Tories are ahead of Labour on who voters trust to handle the economy and that the electorate still blame the previous government for the current economic climate.
But Peter Kellner, head of polling company YouGov, speaking on the BBC this week, has intimated that the downgrading of Britain's economy could signal a 'blame-changer' and a turning-point in voters' perceptions of who is responsible for this country's continuing financial woes. http://dominicavibes.dm/news/uk-loses-top-aaa-credit-rating
After all, three years into this parliament, it is frankly lame for the Tories and the Liberal Democrats to keep harking back to the economic mess they had to clear up on coming into office. On Labour's departure in 2010, Britain was slowly starting to come out of recession and the current administration's strategy of making huge cuts in public spending at such a furious rate, has certainly not worked, with the UK entering a double-dip recession under their watch, and a third dip in the economy still very much a possibility.
And now, with Britain being stripped of their AAA rating, this could very well be reflected in the outcome of the Eastleigh by-election. It is just possible that its voters may reject the Tories' message and stick with the Liberal Democrats, who have held the seat since the bizarre death of Conservative incumbent Stephen Milligan in 1994.
On the other hand, the news that Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is now embroiled in a sex scandal could be very damaging for his party's prospects in Eastleigh.
The by-election was caused by the resignation of former Cabinet Minister Chris Huhne, who was forced to stand down following his conviction for perverting the cause of justice. He has pleaded guilty to charges that he persuaded his former wife, economist Vicky Price, to take his penalty points for a speeding offence in 2003.
Mr Huhne is now almost certainly facing a period in jail when he is sentenced in the coming weeks.
But to compound the embarrassment for the the Liberal Democrats, questions are now being asked about how much Mr Clegg knew about allegations of sexual harrassment levelled against the former Party Chief Executive Lord Rennard.
A Channel Four News investigation has revealed that, prior to his retirement on health grounds in 2009, the Party received complaints that the veteran peer had made improper sexual advances towards several female party workers.
Lord Rennard has strenuously denied any wrong-doing.
But is alleged that both Mr Clegg and Vince Cable, now Business Secretary, were made aware of the claims at the time. And the revelations have raised questions about internal disciplinary procedures within the Liberal Democratic Party machine.
However Mr Clegg's office is insisting that he and Mr Cable only gained knowlege of the Rennard affair when recently approached by Channel Four.
Even if the Lib Dems do hold on to the Hampshire seat, the breaking of this story just days before the voters in Eastleigh go to the polls, is hugely embarrasing for Nick Clegg.
And it is likely to run for some time yet.
Tuesday 5 February 2013
Should Andrew Mitchell Be Re-Instated?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21326604
Has Andrew Mitchell been the victim of a huge stich-up?
Channel Four's Dispatches has endeavoured to uncover the truth over the 'Plebgate' affair.
It is quite clear from the evidence revealed in last night's programme, and the one broadcast in December, that there has been a concerted and vicious campaign, primarilly orchestrated by the Police Federation, to smear Mr Mitchell.
One can only assume that this is the Federation's pathetic way of exacting revenge on the government for making cuts to the Police force.
In my view, framing a hard-working, consciencious Cabinet minister is no way to make a political point. If anything, it will continue to undermine the public's respect for the police.
And it is only fair that those calling most viceforously for Mr Mitchell's sacking are now the subject of disciplinary action.
The CCTV evidence revealed in the two Dispatches programmes clearly shows that there was no altercation between the former Chief Whip and the police at the gates of Downing Street. Moreover, the assertion that there was a crowd of horrified onlookers who witnessed the incident has now been proved to be completely untrue.
It is nothing short of disgraceful that Mr Mitchell was not shown the CCTV footage of the incident which led to his resignation until several weeks afterwards.
Why did the Cabinet Secretary allow this to happen? Surely his position is now untenable?
All this paints David Cameron in a very poor light. He should be the first to admit that Mitchell has been the subject of an appalling injustice.
Am I the only one who thinks that Andrew Mitchell should be immediately re-instated?
Has Andrew Mitchell been the victim of a huge stich-up?
Channel Four's Dispatches has endeavoured to uncover the truth over the 'Plebgate' affair.
It is quite clear from the evidence revealed in last night's programme, and the one broadcast in December, that there has been a concerted and vicious campaign, primarilly orchestrated by the Police Federation, to smear Mr Mitchell.
One can only assume that this is the Federation's pathetic way of exacting revenge on the government for making cuts to the Police force.
In my view, framing a hard-working, consciencious Cabinet minister is no way to make a political point. If anything, it will continue to undermine the public's respect for the police.
And it is only fair that those calling most viceforously for Mr Mitchell's sacking are now the subject of disciplinary action.
The CCTV evidence revealed in the two Dispatches programmes clearly shows that there was no altercation between the former Chief Whip and the police at the gates of Downing Street. Moreover, the assertion that there was a crowd of horrified onlookers who witnessed the incident has now been proved to be completely untrue.
It is nothing short of disgraceful that Mr Mitchell was not shown the CCTV footage of the incident which led to his resignation until several weeks afterwards.
Why did the Cabinet Secretary allow this to happen? Surely his position is now untenable?
All this paints David Cameron in a very poor light. He should be the first to admit that Mitchell has been the subject of an appalling injustice.
Am I the only one who thinks that Andrew Mitchell should be immediately re-instated?
Crunch Time for PM Over Gay Marriage Vote
http://news.sky.com/story/1046321/watchdog-criticises-cameron-for-debt-claim
http://news.sky.com/story/1046532/marriage-tax-breaks-cameron-faces-revolt
http://news.sky.com/story/1046625/gay-marriage-not-the-biggest-issue-for-voters
The issue of gay marriage is clearly very toxic to the Tory Party.
The Prime Minister will not have enjoyed being visited by a group of Constituency Chairs anxious to persuade him not to push legislation through that would redefine marriage as a union between two people, whether it be a man and a woman, two men or two women.
And whilst the Commons vote on the issue will be carried tonight, it is politically disastrous for David Cameron that he will clearly need the support of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs for it to do so.
There is no doubt that the vote on same-sex marriage will be seen by opponents to the Bill as a huge distraction from the things that really matter to the electorate; in particular unemployment and the economy.
And more importantly, the question is, quite rightly, being asked, that since gay marriage was not part of either the Conservative manifesto or the Coalition Agreement, why is the Prime Minister so keen to push this through?
Cameron has always made his support for same-sex marriage very clear. It is one policy that many who so vehemently oppose his handling of the economy or perhaps his attitude to welfare reform will say he is right to pursue.
Many will applaud the joint statement today from the three most important Cabinet ministers after the Prime Minister - the Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary - urging fellow Tory MPs who are still undecided to support the move.
But the decision to shelve introducing tax-breaks for married couples, whilst insisting on driving through legislation on gay marriage, has really angered many Conservative activists and traditional supporters.
This will be seen by many as very muddled thinking, to say the least.
The question is, how divided will the Conservative Party be after tonight's vote?
At constituency level, the mere suggestion that the laws on marriage should be changed has led to many members deserting the Party in droves. And with so many MPs - as many as 100 - intending to vote against the legislation, how secure will David Cameron's position as leader be after today?
There has already been much talk and rumour about the possibility of a stalking-horse challenge to Cameron from the back-benches.
He is clearly beset with problems a the moment.
Tonight's vote comes just days after critism from the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Andrew Dilnot, over the Coalition's handling of the economy and the PM's claims that they are dealing with the country's debts.
In the Conservative's latest political broadcast, Cameron boasted that the national debt had come down, when it has so obviously has not.
Yes, the decifit has been reduced since the coalition took office, but the UK's debt has actually been rising, a point that the PM blatantly fails to acknowledge.
Inevitably this has provoked a furious response from the Labour frontbench, with Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Rachel Reeves accusing Mr Cameron of misleading the British people.
With both Cameron and Osborne looking increasingly incompetent on their handling of the economy, the last thing they need is a damaging split in the Party on the institution of marriage.
http://news.sky.com/story/1046532/marriage-tax-breaks-cameron-faces-revolt
http://news.sky.com/story/1046625/gay-marriage-not-the-biggest-issue-for-voters
The issue of gay marriage is clearly very toxic to the Tory Party.
The Prime Minister will not have enjoyed being visited by a group of Constituency Chairs anxious to persuade him not to push legislation through that would redefine marriage as a union between two people, whether it be a man and a woman, two men or two women.
And whilst the Commons vote on the issue will be carried tonight, it is politically disastrous for David Cameron that he will clearly need the support of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs for it to do so.
There is no doubt that the vote on same-sex marriage will be seen by opponents to the Bill as a huge distraction from the things that really matter to the electorate; in particular unemployment and the economy.
And more importantly, the question is, quite rightly, being asked, that since gay marriage was not part of either the Conservative manifesto or the Coalition Agreement, why is the Prime Minister so keen to push this through?
Cameron has always made his support for same-sex marriage very clear. It is one policy that many who so vehemently oppose his handling of the economy or perhaps his attitude to welfare reform will say he is right to pursue.
Many will applaud the joint statement today from the three most important Cabinet ministers after the Prime Minister - the Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary - urging fellow Tory MPs who are still undecided to support the move.
But the decision to shelve introducing tax-breaks for married couples, whilst insisting on driving through legislation on gay marriage, has really angered many Conservative activists and traditional supporters.
This will be seen by many as very muddled thinking, to say the least.
The question is, how divided will the Conservative Party be after tonight's vote?
At constituency level, the mere suggestion that the laws on marriage should be changed has led to many members deserting the Party in droves. And with so many MPs - as many as 100 - intending to vote against the legislation, how secure will David Cameron's position as leader be after today?
There has already been much talk and rumour about the possibility of a stalking-horse challenge to Cameron from the back-benches.
He is clearly beset with problems a the moment.
Tonight's vote comes just days after critism from the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Andrew Dilnot, over the Coalition's handling of the economy and the PM's claims that they are dealing with the country's debts.
In the Conservative's latest political broadcast, Cameron boasted that the national debt had come down, when it has so obviously has not.
Yes, the decifit has been reduced since the coalition took office, but the UK's debt has actually been rising, a point that the PM blatantly fails to acknowledge.
Inevitably this has provoked a furious response from the Labour frontbench, with Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Rachel Reeves accusing Mr Cameron of misleading the British people.
With both Cameron and Osborne looking increasingly incompetent on their handling of the economy, the last thing they need is a damaging split in the Party on the institution of marriage.
Friday 1 February 2013
PM's 2015 Majority Hopes Dashed After Boundaries Vote Defeat
http://news.sky.com/story/1044622/boundary-vote-mps-reject-planned-changes
http://labourlist.org/2013/01/david-cameron-just-lost-the-2015-election
David Cameron's chances of winning an outright majority at the next election have been dramatically dashed.
It follows a defeat on a measure allowing for changes in constituency boundaries; effective in 2015, which would have possibly meant the Conservatives gaining as many as twenty seats, thus giving them an overall majority in the House of Commons.
The Liberal Democrats helped to inflict this defeat on the Prime Minister, following the collapse of House of Lords reform, a key part of the Coalition agreement.
But the failure of legislation that could have given the Tories considerably more seats at the next election has greatly diminished Cameron's chances of governing without the help of other parties.
Cameron now requires a huge lead in the share of the vote in 2015 to achieve even the smallest majority. With their popularity at an all-time low, a result of this magnitude must seem surely nigh-impossible.
Labour is still very far away from winning the voters' trust, especially on the economy. They have also yet to set out in detail many of the policies on which they will fight the next election. Their lead in the polls is based almost wholly on voters' dissatisfaction with the government, rather than what Labour are currently communicating to the people.
But even with Labour doing badly, the chances of the Tories forming the next government are now even more compromised.
The Tories being forced to fight the next election on the old boundaries is yet more evidence of huge cracks within the government. On current poll-ratings, another Conservative-Lib Dem coalition cannot be ruled out as a possible result. But it is evident that Cameron and his Party can't wait to be shot of their Lib Dem junior partners; behind the smiles and bravado, there are just too many differences between the two parties for the current arrangements to anything more than a one-term wonder.
But if the polls are right, without the change in constituency boundaries that he so desperately needed for an overall win, the best outcome Cameron can hope for in 2015 is to share power again.
http://labourlist.org/2013/01/david-cameron-just-lost-the-2015-election
David Cameron's chances of winning an outright majority at the next election have been dramatically dashed.
It follows a defeat on a measure allowing for changes in constituency boundaries; effective in 2015, which would have possibly meant the Conservatives gaining as many as twenty seats, thus giving them an overall majority in the House of Commons.
The Liberal Democrats helped to inflict this defeat on the Prime Minister, following the collapse of House of Lords reform, a key part of the Coalition agreement.
But the failure of legislation that could have given the Tories considerably more seats at the next election has greatly diminished Cameron's chances of governing without the help of other parties.
Cameron now requires a huge lead in the share of the vote in 2015 to achieve even the smallest majority. With their popularity at an all-time low, a result of this magnitude must seem surely nigh-impossible.
Labour is still very far away from winning the voters' trust, especially on the economy. They have also yet to set out in detail many of the policies on which they will fight the next election. Their lead in the polls is based almost wholly on voters' dissatisfaction with the government, rather than what Labour are currently communicating to the people.
But even with Labour doing badly, the chances of the Tories forming the next government are now even more compromised.
The Tories being forced to fight the next election on the old boundaries is yet more evidence of huge cracks within the government. On current poll-ratings, another Conservative-Lib Dem coalition cannot be ruled out as a possible result. But it is evident that Cameron and his Party can't wait to be shot of their Lib Dem junior partners; behind the smiles and bravado, there are just too many differences between the two parties for the current arrangements to anything more than a one-term wonder.
But if the polls are right, without the change in constituency boundaries that he so desperately needed for an overall win, the best outcome Cameron can hope for in 2015 is to share power again.
Wednesday 30 January 2013
Is Cameron's EU Speech Really A Game-Changer?
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/eu-speech-at-bloomberg/
http://news.sky.com/story/1041728/eu-speech-a-huge-throw-of-dice-for-cameron
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9821587/Ed-Miliband-opposes-EU-vote-but-party-says-just-for-now.html
David Cameron has delivered his much-awaited speech on Britain's future in the European Union.
His pledge to offer the British people a referendum on whether to stay in or leave the EU, has, predictably, had a mixed reaction from across the political spectrum.
There's no doubt that the speech was written with Tory Euro-sceptic MPs in mind, who have been calling for a referendum for years, as well as the growing number of Tory voters who now clearly want Britain to leave the EU and have been deserting David Cameron for UKIP in their droves.
However, despite a small poll-bounce in favour of the Tories immediately after the speech, it is clear that Mr Cameron still has a mountain to climb if he is to win a Conservative majority at the next general election in 2015.
Making a pledge to hold a referendum is one thing; implementing Britain's withdrawl from the EU is quite another.
Polls show that the majority of British people want to leave the EU now rather than later.
The circumstances surrounding Britain's last referendum in 1975 are radically removed from the terms of any subsequent vote on Europe. Then, we were voting to join a single market. Since then the powers of what is now the European Union have increased very dramatically, without the British people having a say on whether they like these arrangements or not.
However, Britain leaving the EU will be entirely dependent on negotiations to this end reaching a swift and satisfactory outcome. The voices of opposition have been quick to make themselves heard.
Nick Clegg has pointed out that the Prime Minister has sentenced this country to years of uncertainty whilst talks to secure Britain's future position take place. This has been reinforced by US President Obama suggesting that Britain should stay in the EU. And now leading economists have weighed in; suggesting that merely having a debate on the issue is damaging economic growth. http://news.sky.com/politics
So what has Labour's reaction to all this?
I have long maintained that Ed Miliband should support an in-out referendum on Europe, since it is clearly what the British people want and such a policy would certainly be a vote-winner for Labour.
However, Miliband has completely failed to grasp the political initiative and Labour's response to Cameron's pledge to hold an in-out referendum in 2017 was nothing short of a shambles.
On the one hand, at PMQs immediately following Cameron's address, Miliband appeared to rule out a referendum all together. But only a few hours later, Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander contradicted his leader's position by insisting Labour had not ruled out support for a referendum, as did several other frontbench colleagues.
Labour currently has a very comfortable lead in the polls, but they have missed a golden opportunity to consolidate their position even further and show that they are really in tune with the thinking of the British people.
The Prime Minister has responded to his backbenchers in agreeing to hold a referendum and it clearly has the support of the electorate.
But with Britain teetering on the edge of a possible triple-dip recession, one has to ask whether it will be the economy and unemployment, rather than a protracted debate on Europe, which will be a greater worry for the Prime Minister in the run-up to the next election.
http://news.sky.com/story/1041728/eu-speech-a-huge-throw-of-dice-for-cameron
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9821587/Ed-Miliband-opposes-EU-vote-but-party-says-just-for-now.html
David Cameron has delivered his much-awaited speech on Britain's future in the European Union.
His pledge to offer the British people a referendum on whether to stay in or leave the EU, has, predictably, had a mixed reaction from across the political spectrum.
There's no doubt that the speech was written with Tory Euro-sceptic MPs in mind, who have been calling for a referendum for years, as well as the growing number of Tory voters who now clearly want Britain to leave the EU and have been deserting David Cameron for UKIP in their droves.
However, despite a small poll-bounce in favour of the Tories immediately after the speech, it is clear that Mr Cameron still has a mountain to climb if he is to win a Conservative majority at the next general election in 2015.
Making a pledge to hold a referendum is one thing; implementing Britain's withdrawl from the EU is quite another.
Polls show that the majority of British people want to leave the EU now rather than later.
The circumstances surrounding Britain's last referendum in 1975 are radically removed from the terms of any subsequent vote on Europe. Then, we were voting to join a single market. Since then the powers of what is now the European Union have increased very dramatically, without the British people having a say on whether they like these arrangements or not.
However, Britain leaving the EU will be entirely dependent on negotiations to this end reaching a swift and satisfactory outcome. The voices of opposition have been quick to make themselves heard.
Nick Clegg has pointed out that the Prime Minister has sentenced this country to years of uncertainty whilst talks to secure Britain's future position take place. This has been reinforced by US President Obama suggesting that Britain should stay in the EU. And now leading economists have weighed in; suggesting that merely having a debate on the issue is damaging economic growth. http://news.sky.com/politics
So what has Labour's reaction to all this?
I have long maintained that Ed Miliband should support an in-out referendum on Europe, since it is clearly what the British people want and such a policy would certainly be a vote-winner for Labour.
However, Miliband has completely failed to grasp the political initiative and Labour's response to Cameron's pledge to hold an in-out referendum in 2017 was nothing short of a shambles.
On the one hand, at PMQs immediately following Cameron's address, Miliband appeared to rule out a referendum all together. But only a few hours later, Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander contradicted his leader's position by insisting Labour had not ruled out support for a referendum, as did several other frontbench colleagues.
Labour currently has a very comfortable lead in the polls, but they have missed a golden opportunity to consolidate their position even further and show that they are really in tune with the thinking of the British people.
The Prime Minister has responded to his backbenchers in agreeing to hold a referendum and it clearly has the support of the electorate.
But with Britain teetering on the edge of a possible triple-dip recession, one has to ask whether it will be the economy and unemployment, rather than a protracted debate on Europe, which will be a greater worry for the Prime Minister in the run-up to the next election.
Monday 7 January 2013
Strathclyde Resignation Puts Dampener On Coalition Relaunch
http://m.sky.com/skynews/article/politics/1034474
The much-publicised relaunch of the Coalition today was somewhat overshadowed by the departure of Lord Strathclyde, Leader of The House of Lords.
The veteran Tory peer, who has served on the Tory frontbench for the last 25 years, announced he was leaving the government with immediate effect to resume a career in business.
However he has made it clear how difficult it has been working with the Liberal Democrats in the Lords.
Lord Strathclyde's resignation can therefore only been seen at best, as an embarrassment to Messrs Cameron and Clegg. The Prime Minister, especially, considered him a strong ally in Cabinet.
However, the two men did their best to play up the achievements of the Coalition thus far.
Yes, they have reduced the budget deficit by half, but there was no mention of the fact that Britain was still in danger of slipping back into recession, nor that many families now face huge financial hardship, thanks to the cuts to Child Benefit.
This was, thankfully, not a repeat of the nauseating spectacle in 2010, of the two Party leaders fawning over each other in the Downing Street Rose Garden. The Prime Minister emphasised that 'this is not a marriage.'
Indeed, major policy differences remain, not least on welfare, which will no doubt be laid bare in the House of Commons during the debate this week.
Of course both Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg are committed, they say, to ensuring the Coalition lasts until 2015.
But what are we to make of the Deputy Prime Minister's decision to participate in regular phone-ins on LBC?
It is clearly a sign of desperation on both his and the Liberal Democrats' part, given how unpopular their decision to go into government with the Tories has been. There is a real danger of this backfiring for Nick Clegg; remember how his televised apology for supporting an increase in university tuition fees was parodied and played endlessly online?
Being so accessible to voters on radio will expose him to all kinds of abuse from an electorate clearly angry with Mr Clegg and his party for deserting them just so that he and his Party could have a small taste of power. http://news.sky.com/story/1034372/nick-clegg-signs-up-to-lbc-radio-phone-in
Can Cameron Win The Next Election?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9770710/Its-two-years-away-but-the-2015-election-is-already-lost.html
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/01/03/looking-to-history/
It would seem David Cameron's chances of victory in 2015 are looking increasingly slim.
If the commentators are right, there are a number of factors that have considerably altered the political landscape since the Conservatives emerged as the largest party at the 2010 General Election.
The latest opinion polls are putting UKIP in third place, ahead of the Liberal Democrats for the first time. If these results were repeated in the next election, the Tories would lose as many as 40-50 seats and almost certainly relinquish power. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257797/UKIP-surge-set-cost-Tories-51-seats--Miliband-victory-Stunning-blow-Cameron-poll-says-hell-lost-dozens-MPs-Labour-landslide.html.
So is this just government mid-term blues, or something more terminal?
Political analysts are beginning to suggest that the latter is the most likely outcome and when it is The Daily Telegraph and Conservative Home that are predicting defeat for Mr Cameron in 2015, then the Prime Minister cannot afford to ignore the warnings.
The Tory Party Chairman, Grant Shapps, predictably, was very quick to dismiss the latest poll results as a temporary protest on the part of their supporters. And Mr Cameron together with his deputy, Nick Clegg, have once again staged a re-launch of the Coalition, just over half way through its five-year term.
But it may take more than warm words and sound-bites to change the way the wind is blowing.
It is looking increasingly likely that Labour will emerge at least with the largest number of seats at the next election, if not an overall majority.
So what could stand in the way of Mr Cameron winning outright in 2015?
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Paul Goodman, executive editor of Conservative Home, believes that the outcome of the next election is already decided and suggests four major reasons why Cameron will not win an overall majority.
Firstly, one can cite the Conservatives' failure to win over ethnic-minority voters. In 2010, only 16% voted for them, not much of an increase from 10% in 2001. The Prime Minister has appointed Alok Sharma MP as vice-chairman to try and encourage more more minority-support but so far this tactic has not born any fruit, with the share of the vote likely to go down next time, not up. Cameron will be mindful of the fact that several years of having Saaeda Warsi as co-Chair of the party did little to attract ethnic minority support in 2010, so it is unlikely the new vice-chairman will really make a difference. As with Mitt Romney in the US, Cameron's message has only resonated so far with white Middle England and not with the population as a whole.
It would also seem that Cameron's insistence on pushing through proposals to legalise same-sex marriage will have highly negative consequences. There was no mention of these proposals in either the Tories' or Liberal Democrats' manifestoes in 2010, or in their Coalition agreement. This has really riled those MPs on Tory right and more importantly, a large majority of the 'conservative' grass-roots. It is these voters whose support Cameron needs to retain if he is to stay in Downing Street.
The rise of UKIP is also likely have an adverse effect on the Tory vote in 2015. Whilst they may not win any seats next time, as well as now being viewed as an alternative for those wishing to see the UK leave the EU, UKIP has emerged as a voice for discontented voters unhappy with current policies on immigration and crime, not to mention those against same-sex marriage.
Farage has very shrewdly presented UKIP as the party many Tories used to vote for. Just as the formation of the SDP in the 1980s split the Labour Party and helped Margaret Thatcher to win a huge majority in 1983, UKIP is doing exactly the same to the Tory vote. And whilst no Tory big-hitter is yet to defect to UKIP, they are bound to increase their share of the vote in 2015.
The third problem for Cameron is that disunity amonst the Left of British politics is, for once, almost non-existent. And here is the big boost for Ed Miliband; traditional Liberal Democrats have deserted the party in droves since the last election and are now backing Labour. It is unlikely that Miliband will be able to convince enough Tory voters to switch directly to Labour in 2015, but he doesn't need to; if enough former Liberal Democrat voters support Miliband, then he is home and dry. Going on current poll-ratings, he will easily win a 30% share of the vote, if not more.
The fourth factor which could undermine the Conservatives' chances of outright victory is demographic. Current constituency boundaries are more likely to benefit Labour. The Tories' will need to lead Labour by seven points in 2015 to scrape even a bare majority.
So is the outcome of the next General Election already determined?
With the economy also yet to show any signs of recovery, Mr Cameron's days at Number 10 may very well be numbered.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/01/03/looking-to-history/
It would seem David Cameron's chances of victory in 2015 are looking increasingly slim.
If the commentators are right, there are a number of factors that have considerably altered the political landscape since the Conservatives emerged as the largest party at the 2010 General Election.
The latest opinion polls are putting UKIP in third place, ahead of the Liberal Democrats for the first time. If these results were repeated in the next election, the Tories would lose as many as 40-50 seats and almost certainly relinquish power. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257797/UKIP-surge-set-cost-Tories-51-seats--Miliband-victory-Stunning-blow-Cameron-poll-says-hell-lost-dozens-MPs-Labour-landslide.html.
So is this just government mid-term blues, or something more terminal?
Political analysts are beginning to suggest that the latter is the most likely outcome and when it is The Daily Telegraph and Conservative Home that are predicting defeat for Mr Cameron in 2015, then the Prime Minister cannot afford to ignore the warnings.
The Tory Party Chairman, Grant Shapps, predictably, was very quick to dismiss the latest poll results as a temporary protest on the part of their supporters. And Mr Cameron together with his deputy, Nick Clegg, have once again staged a re-launch of the Coalition, just over half way through its five-year term.
But it may take more than warm words and sound-bites to change the way the wind is blowing.
It is looking increasingly likely that Labour will emerge at least with the largest number of seats at the next election, if not an overall majority.
So what could stand in the way of Mr Cameron winning outright in 2015?
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Paul Goodman, executive editor of Conservative Home, believes that the outcome of the next election is already decided and suggests four major reasons why Cameron will not win an overall majority.
Firstly, one can cite the Conservatives' failure to win over ethnic-minority voters. In 2010, only 16% voted for them, not much of an increase from 10% in 2001. The Prime Minister has appointed Alok Sharma MP as vice-chairman to try and encourage more more minority-support but so far this tactic has not born any fruit, with the share of the vote likely to go down next time, not up. Cameron will be mindful of the fact that several years of having Saaeda Warsi as co-Chair of the party did little to attract ethnic minority support in 2010, so it is unlikely the new vice-chairman will really make a difference. As with Mitt Romney in the US, Cameron's message has only resonated so far with white Middle England and not with the population as a whole.
It would also seem that Cameron's insistence on pushing through proposals to legalise same-sex marriage will have highly negative consequences. There was no mention of these proposals in either the Tories' or Liberal Democrats' manifestoes in 2010, or in their Coalition agreement. This has really riled those MPs on Tory right and more importantly, a large majority of the 'conservative' grass-roots. It is these voters whose support Cameron needs to retain if he is to stay in Downing Street.
The rise of UKIP is also likely have an adverse effect on the Tory vote in 2015. Whilst they may not win any seats next time, as well as now being viewed as an alternative for those wishing to see the UK leave the EU, UKIP has emerged as a voice for discontented voters unhappy with current policies on immigration and crime, not to mention those against same-sex marriage.
Farage has very shrewdly presented UKIP as the party many Tories used to vote for. Just as the formation of the SDP in the 1980s split the Labour Party and helped Margaret Thatcher to win a huge majority in 1983, UKIP is doing exactly the same to the Tory vote. And whilst no Tory big-hitter is yet to defect to UKIP, they are bound to increase their share of the vote in 2015.
The third problem for Cameron is that disunity amonst the Left of British politics is, for once, almost non-existent. And here is the big boost for Ed Miliband; traditional Liberal Democrats have deserted the party in droves since the last election and are now backing Labour. It is unlikely that Miliband will be able to convince enough Tory voters to switch directly to Labour in 2015, but he doesn't need to; if enough former Liberal Democrat voters support Miliband, then he is home and dry. Going on current poll-ratings, he will easily win a 30% share of the vote, if not more.
The fourth factor which could undermine the Conservatives' chances of outright victory is demographic. Current constituency boundaries are more likely to benefit Labour. The Tories' will need to lead Labour by seven points in 2015 to scrape even a bare majority.
So is the outcome of the next General Election already determined?
With the economy also yet to show any signs of recovery, Mr Cameron's days at Number 10 may very well be numbered.
Friday 4 January 2013
Plebgate: Did PM Leave Mitchell Out To Dry?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/plebgate-andrew-mitchells-camp-turns-its-guns-on-david-cameron-8429559.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgxN_cHmdnU&feature=g-crec-f&list=FL2ymvZ08BCNBu9utNKZFoPA
http://www.channel4.com/news/plebgate-row-exclusive-cctv-video-footage
It all looked like an open-and-shut case in September.
The newly-promoted Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell was accused of swearing at the police and calling them 'plebs'; he was branded a complete embarassment to David Cameron's more open and accessible Tory Party.
Now CCTV footage has emerged that shows that Mr Mitchell did not engage in any tirade with the police at the gates of Downing Street that day. And more disturbingly, contrary to the account given by the police on duty, there were not, as previously stated, several bystanders at the gates who witnessed the whole incident.
Of course an enquiry into the affair is yet to take place, but Mr Mitchell's supporters have accused the Prime Minister of not standing by him and basically looking on as the ex-Chief Whip hanged out to dry.
Whatever side of the political fence one is on, the scenario of an innocent man being stitched up by the police is absolutely appalling. Yes, officers are angry with the Coalition at proposals to cut police numbers, but that is absolutely no reason to deliberately ruin the reputation and career of a hard-working cabinet minister.
Very significantly the whole episode throws the spotlight squarely on the Prime Minister.
According to the Independent, Mr Cameron has known about the footage that would undoubtedly undermine the police's version of events, for at least three months.
What does that say about the integrity of this government? And indeed all those who were so quick to make political capital out of Mr Mitchell's predicament?
Labour leader Ed Miliband immediately jumped on the bandwagon, using the platform of PMQs to directly accuse Mr Mitchell of using the word 'plebs'.
In my opinion, should any enquiry completely clear Mr Mitchell of any wrong doing, Mr Miliband should immediately apologise to him, as should those in the Police Federation who so hastily called for the Chief Whip to be sacked.
Perhaps with hindsight, Mr Mitchell's decision to stay away from the Tory Party Conference, was a mistake. It simply made him look guilty. But after all, there is a world of difference between muttering 'I thought you guys were supposed to f...king help us' and shouting at the police that 'you're all f...king plebs' and 'you should know your.. place'.
If the enquiry officially clears Mr Mitchell, then I and all those commentators and politicians who called for his sacking owe him a huge apology.
Mr Mitchell should then in my view, immediately be re-instated as a Cabinet Minister.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgxN_cHmdnU&feature=g-crec-f&list=FL2ymvZ08BCNBu9utNKZFoPA
http://www.channel4.com/news/plebgate-row-exclusive-cctv-video-footage
It all looked like an open-and-shut case in September.
The newly-promoted Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell was accused of swearing at the police and calling them 'plebs'; he was branded a complete embarassment to David Cameron's more open and accessible Tory Party.
Now CCTV footage has emerged that shows that Mr Mitchell did not engage in any tirade with the police at the gates of Downing Street that day. And more disturbingly, contrary to the account given by the police on duty, there were not, as previously stated, several bystanders at the gates who witnessed the whole incident.
Of course an enquiry into the affair is yet to take place, but Mr Mitchell's supporters have accused the Prime Minister of not standing by him and basically looking on as the ex-Chief Whip hanged out to dry.
Whatever side of the political fence one is on, the scenario of an innocent man being stitched up by the police is absolutely appalling. Yes, officers are angry with the Coalition at proposals to cut police numbers, but that is absolutely no reason to deliberately ruin the reputation and career of a hard-working cabinet minister.
Very significantly the whole episode throws the spotlight squarely on the Prime Minister.
According to the Independent, Mr Cameron has known about the footage that would undoubtedly undermine the police's version of events, for at least three months.
What does that say about the integrity of this government? And indeed all those who were so quick to make political capital out of Mr Mitchell's predicament?
Labour leader Ed Miliband immediately jumped on the bandwagon, using the platform of PMQs to directly accuse Mr Mitchell of using the word 'plebs'.
In my opinion, should any enquiry completely clear Mr Mitchell of any wrong doing, Mr Miliband should immediately apologise to him, as should those in the Police Federation who so hastily called for the Chief Whip to be sacked.
Perhaps with hindsight, Mr Mitchell's decision to stay away from the Tory Party Conference, was a mistake. It simply made him look guilty. But after all, there is a world of difference between muttering 'I thought you guys were supposed to f...king help us' and shouting at the police that 'you're all f...king plebs' and 'you should know your.. place'.
If the enquiry officially clears Mr Mitchell, then I and all those commentators and politicians who called for his sacking owe him a huge apology.
Mr Mitchell should then in my view, immediately be re-instated as a Cabinet Minister.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)