Over the past weeks I suggested that the British political landscape had changed and would not revert to its former self. The results of the European Elections in the UK rather than the County Council elections, held a week ago, have confirmed my recent instincts about what has happened. I have left until to-day to complete this writing because of Prime Minister’s Question time this Wednesday, followed by a Prime Ministerial statement on constitutional changes and then the mini debate on an opposition motion that Parliament should be dissolved and a General Election held.
My conclusion is that the Government is right not to call an immediate General Election and that the Prime Minister was right not to yield to pressure from within the Cabinet, from the Parliamentary Labour Party, from all the Opposition parties, from the media and a majority of the British voting electorate to resign. However I am certain that the General Election needs to held before the municipal elections of 2010 and that within months of the election the Prime Minister should resign and support the appointment of a successor who is untarnished by the expenses scandal and other policies rejected by the public and who will be able to challenge the present ascendancy of David Cameron.
I believe the evidence is that the Labour Party is facing electoral oblivion whether it changes its Leader or not before the General Election and whether this is held immediately, in the Autumn or the Spring. The public have made up their minds and will grow angrier the longer it takes for a General Election to take place. The sudden bursting out of harmony within the Cabinet and between the Cabinet and Parliamentary Party will not convince the public let alone the media that leopards have changed their spots. Adopting measures to resolve the issue of the wages, allowances and expenses of Members of Parliament will not be enough unless there is significant blood upon the carpet. This means that those whose only punishment is not to stand at the election must not be rewarded with excessive severance and pension packages and in appropriate instances should be required to return money to the taxpayer with interest. I am less enthusiastic about token criminal prosecutions unless there is the clearest evidence of the intention to defraud. Individuals should not be punished in this way where there is evidence that the applications were approved by those with the responsibility to take decision and where they received advice from political colleagues. I see little difference in fact between some of those presently in the firing line and Cabinet Ministers, for example, who used tax payer’s money to obtain advice on how to limit their personal taxation payments
Nor will talk of green shoots in the economy through financial and economic indicators achieve anything other than scorn and ridicule unless those at the top who created the crisis are punished and departures do not result in excessive severance and pension deals which should be on a par with the laid off bank clerks and workers in the car vehicle manufacturing, distribution and sales.
The government will have to take measures to ensure British born workers get existing jobs before those from other nations and blocks will have to be put on accepting any new European measures which undermine British jobs and businesses. Britain should inform the E E C and Turkey that it can no longer support admission until the recession has ended and the threat of terrorist activity significantly reduced. British Troops and British Citizens will have to stop being killed. I also believe the majority will find unacceptable the replacement of Trident if the present level of public services in Education and child care, in Housing and Health, and in Income Support are reduced in real terms.
Changes to the way Parliament operates and in other aspects of the constitution are important in terms of the long term regaining of respect for politicians and parliament, but should not be allowed to get in the way of priority policies and action on jobs, housing, education and health, especially if they are untested at the ballot box and in my view could be the subject of referendum conducted at the same time but with the opportunity to vote for or against component changes.
For example I favour a voting system which will require the successful candidate to have a fifty percent majority through the system of second, or second and third preference, but on constituency by constituency basis. If the Executive is to remain comprised of those elected to the House of Commons and to a legislative scrutiny second chamber then provision should be introduced for Parties to also appointment to this Chamber based on their percentage share of the popular vote. In addition there should be provision for a proportion of directly elected independents (the present Cross Benchers) Law Lords and representatives of religions to be directly elected, some by restricted electorates such as those registered by recognised religions for electoral purposes. I suspect this is but one of a hundred different views and perspectives which at some point need to be narrowed down to a recommended approach with options before it could be put to the electorate in a referendum. The public should not be asked to vote on such major changes during continued economic and political frenzy.
Without such a programme and approach the Labour Party will remain electoral toast. While I have not considered resigning my valued Party Membership and while I will vote and urge everyone to vote to retain a Labour Controlled Council in South Tyneside next May/June, I will need a lot of convincing to vote for any Labour Member of Parliament again, especially if the intention is that the next Prime Minister or Opposition Leader is to be Gordon Brown. While I have not discussed my position with any other Member of the Party I believe that if a secret ballot was held of all paid up Party members my view would be the overwhelming one which predominates, although what may appear contradictory I also thought it was right that he did not immediate resign or was replaced and that a General Election be delayed until October at the earliest. I am of the opinion that the Prime Minister should resign with dignity and with everyone’s respect within the Party within months of the decision to hold a general election if there is the prospect of agreeing on a new Leader who will match the appeal of David Cameron and unite the different approaches of the traditional conservative trade unionists, and the intellectual left and right wings of the Party.
I believe this debate has to be held in public and I like the American Primary system for selection by parties of their political leaders who will put themselves to the electorate, and for the separate Direct Election of the Prime Minister/Head of State, the latter only after the death of Queen Elizabeth unless there is agreement that she should be unopposed as the first President. While titles other than Mr and Mrs, Miss and Master, and Ms could be retained for present holders, they should play no part in the political process and those wishing to retain their other titles should be ineligible for election or appointment to either House of Parliament. I accept that only some key changes can take place before the next General Election but any Labour Manifesto should be clear on what it intends to do these issues.
I find myself in agreement with most of the media commentators on the outcome of the County Council and European Elections. I must add that while David Cameron Nick Clegg, and their colleagues, together with UKIP and the Green Party have appeared honest in their assessment, it has been embarrassingly obvious that Labour Ministers and other official Party spokespersons have recited the same centrally agreed line that the public told them it wanted action on the expenses and action on the economy. They omitted to mention that they also wanted them to go, for Britain to withdraw of the EEC, for British born workers to get British jobs, for the reintroduction of corporal and capital punishment and other matters of prejudice and emotion,
The Prime Minister while saying directly to the media and reported to have told the Parliamentary Party that he is listening and has got the message then makes it clear he has no intention of holding a referendum about British involvement with the EEC because he knows such a vote would be negative. He also then made it clear in response to questions following his statement after Prime Minister’s Question Time on Wednesday that he is firmly against the idea of separating the Executive from both Houses of Parliament without considering the opportunities of a third way. He could had over responsibility for arranging the business of the House to the House, to also delegating the role and appointment of Committees which and seeking confirmation of all Cabinet and Government appointments. It has to stop defending the inaction and failures of the past.
My understanding of the recent election results is that those who previously voted for Conservative candidates in the European election broadly continued to do so. That there was no significant swing to the Tories suggests that the expenses scandal has affected the position but nothing like the impact upon Labour. The immediate response of David Cameron in tackling those where there has been headline abuse of the system has clearly worked. In taking the action he has also strengthened his position as the leader but will have made some bad enemies.
That there was no major turning away from the Conservatives also suggests that once the purge of offending individuals had taken place the traditional voting public will continue to support the main political parties, but to varying degrees. There will therefore be no significant change to the composition of the House of Commons except for changes between the main political parties although if a General Election were to be within the next few months it is possible that the Green Party, the United Kingdom Independence Party plus a couple of Independents could gain a few seats. I would hope the main parties will agree on how best to ensure that a British National Party Candidate is not elected to the Home Parliament and this may involve some difficult changes to policies as well as in exposing who the BNP are and what they stand for.
I appreciate we are in a circular situation that what politicians say about anything is questioned and doubted by the majority of those who voted and that it will be a case of actions should do the speaking and that to do this the Labour Government needs to resist making cheap Party Political Points especially at Prime Minister‘s Question Time. The challenge for the Prime Minister and Cabinet is to start speaking as well as behaving as statesmen and stateswomen and distance themselves from engagement in electioneering for the next six months. Talk about what needs to be done and what they are doing. Answer questions however critical with the facts and information. Accept that there are different viewpoints and solutions and above all show respect for opponents within the Labour Party and in other Parties. The Back Benchers should also start behaving at Prime Minister’s Question Time as if they were Members of the Upper Chamber. The Whips and Ministers should not plant questions for the Government to outline what it has done. Back benchers should concentrate on drawing attention to the needs of their constituents in particular and in general, or on differences over matters of policy and legislation. This was done effectively after the Prime Minister’s statement following P.M.Q‘s. These are all matters which incense the neutral public as well as those who support other political parties.
One beneficiary of Labour’s stay away voters was the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, which has had its internal troubles. Their message has been simple they are against a federal Europe and want to see Britain’s involvement only in trading and commercial cooperation. At the same time if we changed our relationship, they would miss participation in the EEC Member’s gravy train. They have used the salaries and allowance around £200000 a year each to further the interests of their political party and plan to increase the number of candidates at the General Election from 300 at present to close on 500 if as anticipated it takes place in the Spring of 2010. They increased their representation in Europe to the same as the Labour party and the total percentage of the votes cast were greater than Labour. This was more than a protest vote against Labour and an expression to real objections and concerns about Europe. The main issue has been towns being overwhelmed by a combination of immigrants in general, anxieties about the Muslim communities and their intentions, religious and political, and over the scale of economic migration from new admissions to the ECC plus the impact of the recession on existing jobs and the prospects for those leaving University and Professional training course this and next summer.
There is scope for an England for the English Party which is at the centre rather the right or left and it is possible that UKIP could move to fill this gap within England as an alternative to the British National Party. As Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland appears to be having two bites of cherry resentment of Englanders is growing and should be addressed in meaningful ways.
The Liberal Democrats were not expected to do well in Europe as they are the most pro European of the Parties now that the Labour Party is being forced to become more anti European in terms of employment. However while there were indications of progress in key cities and towns as an alternative to Labour they yielded significant ground to the Conservatives to the Counties. The Labour Party should not rule out entering into an electoral agreement to prevent an outright conservative majority to form an majority government. This might be through an immediate change to the voting system if as a side effect it helped to prevent gains by the BNP.
There were two parties who also gained from the election. The Green Party increased their share of the total vote from six to eight percent, presumably because although pro the European community they appear to have the strongest approach to environmental issues. The increased percentage was not reflected in an increase in seats despite proportional representation. The Greens are targeting Norwich in the forthcoming By-election which would be a good thing for democracy if they are successful.
The Party which did achieve its first two seats representing the UK, was the British National Party with its Fuhrer Nick Griffin elected in the North West ballot. Son of a Conservative Councillor he was educated privately and at Cambridge where he graduated in History and Law. He obtained University Blue for Boxing getting into fights with anti fascists at an early age, having shown extreme right wing views from the age of 15. His first Party involvement was with the National Front and then having joined the BNP in 1985 he set about becoming its Fuhrer taking sole charge of its legal and financial matters, its policy, its tactics and selection of candidates.
The Party does not allow non whites into its membership. The are anti capitalist and anti communist and anti Europe. The Party is no longer anti Semitic although there is evidence of continuing to contest the Holocaust. They have now focussed on the Muslim Community. The Party has two faces, with secret meetings at which the leadership are open in their racism and methods while to the electorate they wear suits and play upon current fears and concerns. They argue that asylum seekers are taking up social housing whereas no local authorities provide accommodation until someone has a residency permit. The are in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment and corporal punishment.
The Party has been realigned to function within the law and in concert with other far right parties in Europe with special relations with the French Fascist Party of Le Penn. They fought a vigorous campaign opposed to the ability of Europeans to work in the UK. The Fascist salute has been modified by adding the V sign. The actions are reminiscent of Hitler’s rise to legal power in Germany. The second person elected was Andrew Bron’s only three years in membership, he secured 120000 votes in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region 9.8 of those voting compared to Labour 18.8 whose vote nearly halved.
The Party received 950000 votes which all democrats, anti fascists and antiracists should be alarmed. The emergence of the BNP at this level should not be regarded just as a protest vote in relation to the expenses scandal as the Party in both the previous elections achieved a significant increase on the previous election. Both areas have large Muslim populations as well an influxes from central and eastern European countries within the EEC. The polling areas have also been hard hit by employment losses and gained votes from the Labour because of this and the expenses scandal.
The shock of the night was the scale of the Labour loss of vote only 15.7 percent compared with 22.3 percent the previous occasion with the consequence that the Conservative party total was nearly as much as that for Labour and Liberal Democrat Combined.
The vote had the effect of convincing the majority of the Members of the Parliamentary Labour Party that it would be disastrous to change the Labour Leader thus creating the need for a General Election under the anticipated pressure from opposition parties and the media. There is the real prospect of the number of Labour Members being reduced from 364 to under 200 possibly as low as 150 as a consequence with the Conservative Party gaining an overall majority. Only twice before has a Political Party managed such as change in fortunes with the Labour Atlee government after the end of World War II and the Blair victory in 1997.
The Prime Minister appears to have had a successful meeting with his Parliamentary committee. Of Labour’s 350 member, its said that of the order of 200 are members of the Cabinet or junior Ministers who act as Parliamentary secretaries to Ministers, to are part of the Whips Office, i.e. those who maintain Party discipline. Of the remaining 150 only about 20 identified themselves in public as calling for the Prime Minister to step down. The Prime Minister admitted his personal mistakes and personality communication problems but also insisted that the priorities of concentrating on the economic situation and dealing immediately with the expenses scandals was right and the was the man for the job. He is announces initiatives in relation to the constitution, especially in relation to the House of Lords. He promised to change his style and involve his Cabinet of Ministers, the Party and the country in decision taking to a greater extent than before.
The Prime Minister should be expected to take more of a back seat within Cabinet and in the media, especially in situations where he is subjected to media questioning. He needs to consistently and repeatedly demonstrate the humility which he says he gained from visiting his constituency. Being humble does not mean abdicating authority and leadership. He needs to stop referring to himself and his role and switch to the Royal we, the Government, as perfected by Margaret Thatcher.
On Sunday in the Andrew Marr show the interview with Peter Mandelson was most informative. It appears he was instrumental in approaching key members of the Cabinet and potential rebels, to gain their involvement in the new Cabinet and their public support for the Prime Minister. It also became evident that there will be policy concessions although both wings of the Party will by vying for changes to suit their interests. This needs to be made in public. The government should be prepared to be defeated on some issues but should not make these an issue of confidence. Sticking to what you believe is right as well as yielding on some issues is an indication of the ability to listen, of having authority and leadership. The Prime Minister was right to climb down over the Ghurkhas although why he and his advisers did not see the situation developing is a puzzle. He should have been more honest in defeat and not tried to take credit together with the then Home Secretary, especially once he knew she would not continue in that role. I have an open mind about the future of the post office. If the government believes their proposals are the best solution then it should be taken to the vote even if it is defeated.
There is the assumption that the present course of action proposed by the government will regain the support of Party activists and begin to court back the disenchanted voters. The evidence remains that Gordon Brown will be a electoral liability. Common sense suggests that the Labour Party should plan for someone with Presidential appeal to combat the advance of Cameron during the three to six months before the General election. Ideally this should be a new face to the electorate, unsullied by any aspects of the expenses scandal. Sadly because of the experience of Margaret Thatcher and the present public view of a plague upon all your houses, and the swing to the right this may not be the time to make a female appointment or someone who could appeal to the multicultural society. Labour may have to move towards right wing attitudes on immigration if is to claw back the core vote. Having said this the results for central London suggests that the city is adapting to multicultural London, possible because there is room enough, however crowded for everyone to create separate communities in which they can feel comfortable. Housing drugs and knife carrying young people will continue to pose major problems as well as the threat of terrorism, all which need to be tackled in the run up to the Olympic Games. The results in London although poor were not as bad as anticipated.
There was a similar more positive note in the North East although the number of people who stayed at home remained staggering and I was alarmed when a year ago the BNP achieved some shocking results in some wards and one in Jarrow in particular. Given the limited nature of immigration in the North East compared to other parts of the country the further loss of votes is alarming. When I arrived in he North East all nine councils, the five metropolitan authorities were strongly Labour. Now the Liberal Democrats have gained control in Newcastle and Northumberland, the Conservatives have gained North Tyneside and made inroads into Sunderland. The European vote suggests that South Tyneside, Gateshead and in future Durham will all be vulnerable in what is still regarded as Labour’s voting stronghold heartland. With Conservatives becoming the majority party in the Welsh Euro elections and the Nationalist party in Scotland doing likewise, replacing Labour the alarm bells as to why this has happened should continue to sound everyday until the position changes. I was horrified when the successful European Labour candidate in the North East was quoted in the local paper as blaming the media. What an idiot if this is what he said.
My instinct is that the damage to the Labour Government caused by the political ineptness of Gordon Brown and his Cabinet will be impossible to repair even if a General Election is put off to the Spring. If it is held as the same time as the elections in our cities and towns then there will also be a rout of Labour Councillors and I fear Labour will lose control here in South Tyneside to the local mixture of Progressives, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Independent Labour which now make up the Council. Without the presence of a strong independent in my ward I could see the BNP making a serious challenge.
At that local election in 2008 the problem was the national Government’s decision to abolish the ten pence tax plan and because the local Council had given planning permission for a new call centre which although created several hundred jobs, and has an attractive set of buildings from the waterfront, has an unsightly top which looms up over the riverside embankment. The development put paid to a proposal to imaginatively develop the Arbeia Roman Fort into a major Tourist attraction and appears to have put paid to a hotel and conference centre on a defunct sports stadium at one end of the esplanade. The South Shields Labour Party has always showed conservatism and political weakness compared to that in Mid Tyne. One of the first Councillors to shake my hand when I was appointed in 1973 whispered that I would be disappointed because this is town full of Tories, and he meant his political colleagues among the sixty labour Councillors out of the total sixty six.
I make no apology for going over why core Labour voters and in indeed activists want not just a new Leader but a genuinely new Cabinet endorsed by the popular vote. First there was the failure to call a General Election when the Prime Minister was appointed by his Party without a contest within the Labour Party. Everything pointed to an election being called and then he changed his mind. Whatever moves the Government now make to improve democratic involvement, the accusation that he funked facing the public not once but twice will stick. I am sure there were good reasons behind the decision in both instances but politics is more about public perception, largely interpreted and edited by the media.
Then there has been the division within the Party over his leadership with not one but two attempts to replace him. What does this say about the Prime Minister and what does this say about his political colleagues who planned and plotted and then funked taking further action?
The third problem has been the inability of the Prime Minister to admit mistakes and to apologise for defects which the media will push to the fore whatever he does to re-brand himself/ At the last media conference they openly accused him of lying about the decision not to replace the Chancellor with his close colleague Ed Balls. Similarly even though his colleagues may have trailed the intention of replacing my local Member of Parliament, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary. in order to secure his loyalty rather than seriously intending move and effectively make it impossible for him to stay in the government undertaking a lesser job, that David went public and stated he wanted to keep his job, indicates that the intention was real. In order not to disappoint Peter Mandelson he made him the effective deputy Prime Minister, giving him the title of First Secretary of State, putting him at the head of the Privy Council, enlarging his Ministerial and Cabinet responsibilities, What this says about the position of the Deputy Leader and Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman, has already been noted.
For most of the past twelve years I believed that Tony Blair who I still regard as the greatest Leader of the Party alongside Clem Atlee, was nevertheless, the personality Prime Minister, all sound bite and charm, while Gordon Brown was the man of substance, seriousness and integrity. Unfortunately since the Credit Crunch and the near collapse of International capitalism his mask has slipped off. He talks of the seriousness of the country’s financial position but appears gleeful when he scores points or rebuts points made at Prime Minister‘s Question Time, or when answering media questions at the monthly, and recently more frequent meeting the media sessions. He appears to have becomes so absorbed in these artificial situations that he appears to forget the impact upon the wider public and people like me. This is intended to be a back handed compliment. When he slipped and said his actions had saved the world, he was in fact being factual in terms of international capitalism. And this brings me to the dilemma which all true socialists are in.
On one hand the Prime Minister has become an electoral liability which at this stance from political activists and relying on political commentators he does not appear to recognised.
At the same time he the man directly responsible for the expansion of expenditure on public services, especially on child care and education and which should always be as great a priority as housing and health. Recently the Prime Minister has been in a position to show other countries the way to limit the impact of the near collapse of international capitalism. I suspect that I am one of the few people left who still believes it was right for Britain to go to war in Iraq alongside the USA and to continue in Afghanistan for as long as there is risk of the Taliban regaining power alongside Al-Qaeda. So I am not someone who changes according to fashion or changes position when a policy or a decision does not work the way planned.
I continue to have mixed feelings about the Prime Minister who can claim to have been the most successful of Labour Chancellors of the Exchequers yet he also played a major part in the widening of the gulf between rich and poor, in failing to listen to those, notably Vince Cable, who repeatedly warned about the dangers and risks of the credit and financial speculation society, and who then failed to slap down as hard as possible the banking traders and their pensions, severance packages and bonuses, and not forgetting the flawed abolition of the ten pence tax allowance. I have no quarrel with the public expenditure solution to reducing the level of unemployment and to increase social housing, long as it works and that those who created the situation get their comeuppance.
Contradictory to what I am writing, I still believe that personality divisions within the Political Party should kept as private as possible but only as long as the debate about the future direction of a Labour Government and the Labour Party is open, frank and widened within the timescale possible before the next General Election. My own view continues to be that a leadership debate centring on future policies and plans would not be as destructive as some are presently suggesting, but even without the leadership being an issue, the debate needs to take place in public
To day was a good test of how the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Party intended to cope with the increased onslaught on their position. First there was Prime Ministers Question Time. Questions were planted to attack the main Opposition and the main opposition made as much mischief as was possible in advance of subsequent statements and debates. The Question Time was everything which he public has come to hate.
In contrast the statement on expenses and constitutional issues was controlled and masterly and appeared to go a long way to addressing most of the current issues. I believed the government were committed to the action before any General Election or as pledges in the election when it takes place. Together was a good series of questions in which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats emphasised their wish for an immediate General Election and for the Prime Minister to emphasise his intention of getting on with his plan, and policies, Labour Members, raised issues. pressing for alternatives in an orderly fashion without upsetting the fragile unity.
The main event was the motion of the Scottish and Welsh Nationalist parties for a dissolution of Parliament. Their motives were clear. They wanted to bring down the government as a means if enhancing their position of separating full from the Union with England. The debate was arranged before the elections results were known. There was a great political knockabout between the Government Ministers and backbenchers and the Scottish Nationalists, and in which I thought the Government and the backbenchers won the argument effectively. There were two thoughtful and balanced contributions from within the Labour Party which concentrated on the need to put things right and on the dangers of holding an early election.
The start turns were the contributions made by two Conservatives. The first, by Deputy Leader William Hague was exceptionally funny as he poured scorn on recent developments, on the changing position of the Prime Minister and on the role of Peter Mandelson. While Labour Members praised his performance they did not change from their position, The second contribution ws of the highest order of serious about the predicament of Parliament and the responsibility of individual members to gain a mandate or not from the people. Richard Shepherd was concerned about the position of the Prime Minister and of the government but he appeared genuine in his distress about what had had happened and on the need for all Members to seek redemption before the Electorate. He was listened to in intense silence and won the respect of the House in what will be regarded as one of the great speeches of modern times. The motion was defeated by 340 to 268. That there was one the biggest votes of modern times is extraordinary given that there was between a score and one hundred Members present during the debate itself.
The most extraordinary aspect was eh the argument made by new Cabinet Minister to the Brown government Peter Hain who argued that to hold an election now would create chaos. At the same time the Prime Minister and other Government Ministers appeared to show no interest in shortening the summer recess from over three months to two. Anyone watching would have concluded with Richard Shepherd, A plague upon all your Houses. You continue to show a lack of respect and confidence in the British Voter. The Government and the Labour Party in general is destined to face a lasting political reaction of its own making.
My conclusion is that the Government is right not to call an immediate General Election and that the Prime Minister was right not to yield to pressure from within the Cabinet, from the Parliamentary Labour Party, from all the Opposition parties, from the media and a majority of the British voting electorate to resign. However I am certain that the General Election needs to held before the municipal elections of 2010 and that within months of the election the Prime Minister should resign and support the appointment of a successor who is untarnished by the expenses scandal and other policies rejected by the public and who will be able to challenge the present ascendancy of David Cameron.
I believe the evidence is that the Labour Party is facing electoral oblivion whether it changes its Leader or not before the General Election and whether this is held immediately, in the Autumn or the Spring. The public have made up their minds and will grow angrier the longer it takes for a General Election to take place. The sudden bursting out of harmony within the Cabinet and between the Cabinet and Parliamentary Party will not convince the public let alone the media that leopards have changed their spots. Adopting measures to resolve the issue of the wages, allowances and expenses of Members of Parliament will not be enough unless there is significant blood upon the carpet. This means that those whose only punishment is not to stand at the election must not be rewarded with excessive severance and pension packages and in appropriate instances should be required to return money to the taxpayer with interest. I am less enthusiastic about token criminal prosecutions unless there is the clearest evidence of the intention to defraud. Individuals should not be punished in this way where there is evidence that the applications were approved by those with the responsibility to take decision and where they received advice from political colleagues. I see little difference in fact between some of those presently in the firing line and Cabinet Ministers, for example, who used tax payer’s money to obtain advice on how to limit their personal taxation payments
Nor will talk of green shoots in the economy through financial and economic indicators achieve anything other than scorn and ridicule unless those at the top who created the crisis are punished and departures do not result in excessive severance and pension deals which should be on a par with the laid off bank clerks and workers in the car vehicle manufacturing, distribution and sales.
The government will have to take measures to ensure British born workers get existing jobs before those from other nations and blocks will have to be put on accepting any new European measures which undermine British jobs and businesses. Britain should inform the E E C and Turkey that it can no longer support admission until the recession has ended and the threat of terrorist activity significantly reduced. British Troops and British Citizens will have to stop being killed. I also believe the majority will find unacceptable the replacement of Trident if the present level of public services in Education and child care, in Housing and Health, and in Income Support are reduced in real terms.
Changes to the way Parliament operates and in other aspects of the constitution are important in terms of the long term regaining of respect for politicians and parliament, but should not be allowed to get in the way of priority policies and action on jobs, housing, education and health, especially if they are untested at the ballot box and in my view could be the subject of referendum conducted at the same time but with the opportunity to vote for or against component changes.
For example I favour a voting system which will require the successful candidate to have a fifty percent majority through the system of second, or second and third preference, but on constituency by constituency basis. If the Executive is to remain comprised of those elected to the House of Commons and to a legislative scrutiny second chamber then provision should be introduced for Parties to also appointment to this Chamber based on their percentage share of the popular vote. In addition there should be provision for a proportion of directly elected independents (the present Cross Benchers) Law Lords and representatives of religions to be directly elected, some by restricted electorates such as those registered by recognised religions for electoral purposes. I suspect this is but one of a hundred different views and perspectives which at some point need to be narrowed down to a recommended approach with options before it could be put to the electorate in a referendum. The public should not be asked to vote on such major changes during continued economic and political frenzy.
Without such a programme and approach the Labour Party will remain electoral toast. While I have not considered resigning my valued Party Membership and while I will vote and urge everyone to vote to retain a Labour Controlled Council in South Tyneside next May/June, I will need a lot of convincing to vote for any Labour Member of Parliament again, especially if the intention is that the next Prime Minister or Opposition Leader is to be Gordon Brown. While I have not discussed my position with any other Member of the Party I believe that if a secret ballot was held of all paid up Party members my view would be the overwhelming one which predominates, although what may appear contradictory I also thought it was right that he did not immediate resign or was replaced and that a General Election be delayed until October at the earliest. I am of the opinion that the Prime Minister should resign with dignity and with everyone’s respect within the Party within months of the decision to hold a general election if there is the prospect of agreeing on a new Leader who will match the appeal of David Cameron and unite the different approaches of the traditional conservative trade unionists, and the intellectual left and right wings of the Party.
I believe this debate has to be held in public and I like the American Primary system for selection by parties of their political leaders who will put themselves to the electorate, and for the separate Direct Election of the Prime Minister/Head of State, the latter only after the death of Queen Elizabeth unless there is agreement that she should be unopposed as the first President. While titles other than Mr and Mrs, Miss and Master, and Ms could be retained for present holders, they should play no part in the political process and those wishing to retain their other titles should be ineligible for election or appointment to either House of Parliament. I accept that only some key changes can take place before the next General Election but any Labour Manifesto should be clear on what it intends to do these issues.
I find myself in agreement with most of the media commentators on the outcome of the County Council and European Elections. I must add that while David Cameron Nick Clegg, and their colleagues, together with UKIP and the Green Party have appeared honest in their assessment, it has been embarrassingly obvious that Labour Ministers and other official Party spokespersons have recited the same centrally agreed line that the public told them it wanted action on the expenses and action on the economy. They omitted to mention that they also wanted them to go, for Britain to withdraw of the EEC, for British born workers to get British jobs, for the reintroduction of corporal and capital punishment and other matters of prejudice and emotion,
The Prime Minister while saying directly to the media and reported to have told the Parliamentary Party that he is listening and has got the message then makes it clear he has no intention of holding a referendum about British involvement with the EEC because he knows such a vote would be negative. He also then made it clear in response to questions following his statement after Prime Minister’s Question Time on Wednesday that he is firmly against the idea of separating the Executive from both Houses of Parliament without considering the opportunities of a third way. He could had over responsibility for arranging the business of the House to the House, to also delegating the role and appointment of Committees which and seeking confirmation of all Cabinet and Government appointments. It has to stop defending the inaction and failures of the past.
My understanding of the recent election results is that those who previously voted for Conservative candidates in the European election broadly continued to do so. That there was no significant swing to the Tories suggests that the expenses scandal has affected the position but nothing like the impact upon Labour. The immediate response of David Cameron in tackling those where there has been headline abuse of the system has clearly worked. In taking the action he has also strengthened his position as the leader but will have made some bad enemies.
That there was no major turning away from the Conservatives also suggests that once the purge of offending individuals had taken place the traditional voting public will continue to support the main political parties, but to varying degrees. There will therefore be no significant change to the composition of the House of Commons except for changes between the main political parties although if a General Election were to be within the next few months it is possible that the Green Party, the United Kingdom Independence Party plus a couple of Independents could gain a few seats. I would hope the main parties will agree on how best to ensure that a British National Party Candidate is not elected to the Home Parliament and this may involve some difficult changes to policies as well as in exposing who the BNP are and what they stand for.
I appreciate we are in a circular situation that what politicians say about anything is questioned and doubted by the majority of those who voted and that it will be a case of actions should do the speaking and that to do this the Labour Government needs to resist making cheap Party Political Points especially at Prime Minister‘s Question Time. The challenge for the Prime Minister and Cabinet is to start speaking as well as behaving as statesmen and stateswomen and distance themselves from engagement in electioneering for the next six months. Talk about what needs to be done and what they are doing. Answer questions however critical with the facts and information. Accept that there are different viewpoints and solutions and above all show respect for opponents within the Labour Party and in other Parties. The Back Benchers should also start behaving at Prime Minister’s Question Time as if they were Members of the Upper Chamber. The Whips and Ministers should not plant questions for the Government to outline what it has done. Back benchers should concentrate on drawing attention to the needs of their constituents in particular and in general, or on differences over matters of policy and legislation. This was done effectively after the Prime Minister’s statement following P.M.Q‘s. These are all matters which incense the neutral public as well as those who support other political parties.
One beneficiary of Labour’s stay away voters was the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, which has had its internal troubles. Their message has been simple they are against a federal Europe and want to see Britain’s involvement only in trading and commercial cooperation. At the same time if we changed our relationship, they would miss participation in the EEC Member’s gravy train. They have used the salaries and allowance around £200000 a year each to further the interests of their political party and plan to increase the number of candidates at the General Election from 300 at present to close on 500 if as anticipated it takes place in the Spring of 2010. They increased their representation in Europe to the same as the Labour party and the total percentage of the votes cast were greater than Labour. This was more than a protest vote against Labour and an expression to real objections and concerns about Europe. The main issue has been towns being overwhelmed by a combination of immigrants in general, anxieties about the Muslim communities and their intentions, religious and political, and over the scale of economic migration from new admissions to the ECC plus the impact of the recession on existing jobs and the prospects for those leaving University and Professional training course this and next summer.
There is scope for an England for the English Party which is at the centre rather the right or left and it is possible that UKIP could move to fill this gap within England as an alternative to the British National Party. As Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland appears to be having two bites of cherry resentment of Englanders is growing and should be addressed in meaningful ways.
The Liberal Democrats were not expected to do well in Europe as they are the most pro European of the Parties now that the Labour Party is being forced to become more anti European in terms of employment. However while there were indications of progress in key cities and towns as an alternative to Labour they yielded significant ground to the Conservatives to the Counties. The Labour Party should not rule out entering into an electoral agreement to prevent an outright conservative majority to form an majority government. This might be through an immediate change to the voting system if as a side effect it helped to prevent gains by the BNP.
There were two parties who also gained from the election. The Green Party increased their share of the total vote from six to eight percent, presumably because although pro the European community they appear to have the strongest approach to environmental issues. The increased percentage was not reflected in an increase in seats despite proportional representation. The Greens are targeting Norwich in the forthcoming By-election which would be a good thing for democracy if they are successful.
The Party which did achieve its first two seats representing the UK, was the British National Party with its Fuhrer Nick Griffin elected in the North West ballot. Son of a Conservative Councillor he was educated privately and at Cambridge where he graduated in History and Law. He obtained University Blue for Boxing getting into fights with anti fascists at an early age, having shown extreme right wing views from the age of 15. His first Party involvement was with the National Front and then having joined the BNP in 1985 he set about becoming its Fuhrer taking sole charge of its legal and financial matters, its policy, its tactics and selection of candidates.
The Party does not allow non whites into its membership. The are anti capitalist and anti communist and anti Europe. The Party is no longer anti Semitic although there is evidence of continuing to contest the Holocaust. They have now focussed on the Muslim Community. The Party has two faces, with secret meetings at which the leadership are open in their racism and methods while to the electorate they wear suits and play upon current fears and concerns. They argue that asylum seekers are taking up social housing whereas no local authorities provide accommodation until someone has a residency permit. The are in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment and corporal punishment.
The Party has been realigned to function within the law and in concert with other far right parties in Europe with special relations with the French Fascist Party of Le Penn. They fought a vigorous campaign opposed to the ability of Europeans to work in the UK. The Fascist salute has been modified by adding the V sign. The actions are reminiscent of Hitler’s rise to legal power in Germany. The second person elected was Andrew Bron’s only three years in membership, he secured 120000 votes in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region 9.8 of those voting compared to Labour 18.8 whose vote nearly halved.
The Party received 950000 votes which all democrats, anti fascists and antiracists should be alarmed. The emergence of the BNP at this level should not be regarded just as a protest vote in relation to the expenses scandal as the Party in both the previous elections achieved a significant increase on the previous election. Both areas have large Muslim populations as well an influxes from central and eastern European countries within the EEC. The polling areas have also been hard hit by employment losses and gained votes from the Labour because of this and the expenses scandal.
The shock of the night was the scale of the Labour loss of vote only 15.7 percent compared with 22.3 percent the previous occasion with the consequence that the Conservative party total was nearly as much as that for Labour and Liberal Democrat Combined.
The vote had the effect of convincing the majority of the Members of the Parliamentary Labour Party that it would be disastrous to change the Labour Leader thus creating the need for a General Election under the anticipated pressure from opposition parties and the media. There is the real prospect of the number of Labour Members being reduced from 364 to under 200 possibly as low as 150 as a consequence with the Conservative Party gaining an overall majority. Only twice before has a Political Party managed such as change in fortunes with the Labour Atlee government after the end of World War II and the Blair victory in 1997.
The Prime Minister appears to have had a successful meeting with his Parliamentary committee. Of Labour’s 350 member, its said that of the order of 200 are members of the Cabinet or junior Ministers who act as Parliamentary secretaries to Ministers, to are part of the Whips Office, i.e. those who maintain Party discipline. Of the remaining 150 only about 20 identified themselves in public as calling for the Prime Minister to step down. The Prime Minister admitted his personal mistakes and personality communication problems but also insisted that the priorities of concentrating on the economic situation and dealing immediately with the expenses scandals was right and the was the man for the job. He is announces initiatives in relation to the constitution, especially in relation to the House of Lords. He promised to change his style and involve his Cabinet of Ministers, the Party and the country in decision taking to a greater extent than before.
The Prime Minister should be expected to take more of a back seat within Cabinet and in the media, especially in situations where he is subjected to media questioning. He needs to consistently and repeatedly demonstrate the humility which he says he gained from visiting his constituency. Being humble does not mean abdicating authority and leadership. He needs to stop referring to himself and his role and switch to the Royal we, the Government, as perfected by Margaret Thatcher.
On Sunday in the Andrew Marr show the interview with Peter Mandelson was most informative. It appears he was instrumental in approaching key members of the Cabinet and potential rebels, to gain their involvement in the new Cabinet and their public support for the Prime Minister. It also became evident that there will be policy concessions although both wings of the Party will by vying for changes to suit their interests. This needs to be made in public. The government should be prepared to be defeated on some issues but should not make these an issue of confidence. Sticking to what you believe is right as well as yielding on some issues is an indication of the ability to listen, of having authority and leadership. The Prime Minister was right to climb down over the Ghurkhas although why he and his advisers did not see the situation developing is a puzzle. He should have been more honest in defeat and not tried to take credit together with the then Home Secretary, especially once he knew she would not continue in that role. I have an open mind about the future of the post office. If the government believes their proposals are the best solution then it should be taken to the vote even if it is defeated.
There is the assumption that the present course of action proposed by the government will regain the support of Party activists and begin to court back the disenchanted voters. The evidence remains that Gordon Brown will be a electoral liability. Common sense suggests that the Labour Party should plan for someone with Presidential appeal to combat the advance of Cameron during the three to six months before the General election. Ideally this should be a new face to the electorate, unsullied by any aspects of the expenses scandal. Sadly because of the experience of Margaret Thatcher and the present public view of a plague upon all your houses, and the swing to the right this may not be the time to make a female appointment or someone who could appeal to the multicultural society. Labour may have to move towards right wing attitudes on immigration if is to claw back the core vote. Having said this the results for central London suggests that the city is adapting to multicultural London, possible because there is room enough, however crowded for everyone to create separate communities in which they can feel comfortable. Housing drugs and knife carrying young people will continue to pose major problems as well as the threat of terrorism, all which need to be tackled in the run up to the Olympic Games. The results in London although poor were not as bad as anticipated.
There was a similar more positive note in the North East although the number of people who stayed at home remained staggering and I was alarmed when a year ago the BNP achieved some shocking results in some wards and one in Jarrow in particular. Given the limited nature of immigration in the North East compared to other parts of the country the further loss of votes is alarming. When I arrived in he North East all nine councils, the five metropolitan authorities were strongly Labour. Now the Liberal Democrats have gained control in Newcastle and Northumberland, the Conservatives have gained North Tyneside and made inroads into Sunderland. The European vote suggests that South Tyneside, Gateshead and in future Durham will all be vulnerable in what is still regarded as Labour’s voting stronghold heartland. With Conservatives becoming the majority party in the Welsh Euro elections and the Nationalist party in Scotland doing likewise, replacing Labour the alarm bells as to why this has happened should continue to sound everyday until the position changes. I was horrified when the successful European Labour candidate in the North East was quoted in the local paper as blaming the media. What an idiot if this is what he said.
My instinct is that the damage to the Labour Government caused by the political ineptness of Gordon Brown and his Cabinet will be impossible to repair even if a General Election is put off to the Spring. If it is held as the same time as the elections in our cities and towns then there will also be a rout of Labour Councillors and I fear Labour will lose control here in South Tyneside to the local mixture of Progressives, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Independent Labour which now make up the Council. Without the presence of a strong independent in my ward I could see the BNP making a serious challenge.
At that local election in 2008 the problem was the national Government’s decision to abolish the ten pence tax plan and because the local Council had given planning permission for a new call centre which although created several hundred jobs, and has an attractive set of buildings from the waterfront, has an unsightly top which looms up over the riverside embankment. The development put paid to a proposal to imaginatively develop the Arbeia Roman Fort into a major Tourist attraction and appears to have put paid to a hotel and conference centre on a defunct sports stadium at one end of the esplanade. The South Shields Labour Party has always showed conservatism and political weakness compared to that in Mid Tyne. One of the first Councillors to shake my hand when I was appointed in 1973 whispered that I would be disappointed because this is town full of Tories, and he meant his political colleagues among the sixty labour Councillors out of the total sixty six.
I make no apology for going over why core Labour voters and in indeed activists want not just a new Leader but a genuinely new Cabinet endorsed by the popular vote. First there was the failure to call a General Election when the Prime Minister was appointed by his Party without a contest within the Labour Party. Everything pointed to an election being called and then he changed his mind. Whatever moves the Government now make to improve democratic involvement, the accusation that he funked facing the public not once but twice will stick. I am sure there were good reasons behind the decision in both instances but politics is more about public perception, largely interpreted and edited by the media.
Then there has been the division within the Party over his leadership with not one but two attempts to replace him. What does this say about the Prime Minister and what does this say about his political colleagues who planned and plotted and then funked taking further action?
The third problem has been the inability of the Prime Minister to admit mistakes and to apologise for defects which the media will push to the fore whatever he does to re-brand himself/ At the last media conference they openly accused him of lying about the decision not to replace the Chancellor with his close colleague Ed Balls. Similarly even though his colleagues may have trailed the intention of replacing my local Member of Parliament, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary. in order to secure his loyalty rather than seriously intending move and effectively make it impossible for him to stay in the government undertaking a lesser job, that David went public and stated he wanted to keep his job, indicates that the intention was real. In order not to disappoint Peter Mandelson he made him the effective deputy Prime Minister, giving him the title of First Secretary of State, putting him at the head of the Privy Council, enlarging his Ministerial and Cabinet responsibilities, What this says about the position of the Deputy Leader and Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman, has already been noted.
For most of the past twelve years I believed that Tony Blair who I still regard as the greatest Leader of the Party alongside Clem Atlee, was nevertheless, the personality Prime Minister, all sound bite and charm, while Gordon Brown was the man of substance, seriousness and integrity. Unfortunately since the Credit Crunch and the near collapse of International capitalism his mask has slipped off. He talks of the seriousness of the country’s financial position but appears gleeful when he scores points or rebuts points made at Prime Minister‘s Question Time, or when answering media questions at the monthly, and recently more frequent meeting the media sessions. He appears to have becomes so absorbed in these artificial situations that he appears to forget the impact upon the wider public and people like me. This is intended to be a back handed compliment. When he slipped and said his actions had saved the world, he was in fact being factual in terms of international capitalism. And this brings me to the dilemma which all true socialists are in.
On one hand the Prime Minister has become an electoral liability which at this stance from political activists and relying on political commentators he does not appear to recognised.
At the same time he the man directly responsible for the expansion of expenditure on public services, especially on child care and education and which should always be as great a priority as housing and health. Recently the Prime Minister has been in a position to show other countries the way to limit the impact of the near collapse of international capitalism. I suspect that I am one of the few people left who still believes it was right for Britain to go to war in Iraq alongside the USA and to continue in Afghanistan for as long as there is risk of the Taliban regaining power alongside Al-Qaeda. So I am not someone who changes according to fashion or changes position when a policy or a decision does not work the way planned.
I continue to have mixed feelings about the Prime Minister who can claim to have been the most successful of Labour Chancellors of the Exchequers yet he also played a major part in the widening of the gulf between rich and poor, in failing to listen to those, notably Vince Cable, who repeatedly warned about the dangers and risks of the credit and financial speculation society, and who then failed to slap down as hard as possible the banking traders and their pensions, severance packages and bonuses, and not forgetting the flawed abolition of the ten pence tax allowance. I have no quarrel with the public expenditure solution to reducing the level of unemployment and to increase social housing, long as it works and that those who created the situation get their comeuppance.
Contradictory to what I am writing, I still believe that personality divisions within the Political Party should kept as private as possible but only as long as the debate about the future direction of a Labour Government and the Labour Party is open, frank and widened within the timescale possible before the next General Election. My own view continues to be that a leadership debate centring on future policies and plans would not be as destructive as some are presently suggesting, but even without the leadership being an issue, the debate needs to take place in public
To day was a good test of how the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Party intended to cope with the increased onslaught on their position. First there was Prime Ministers Question Time. Questions were planted to attack the main Opposition and the main opposition made as much mischief as was possible in advance of subsequent statements and debates. The Question Time was everything which he public has come to hate.
In contrast the statement on expenses and constitutional issues was controlled and masterly and appeared to go a long way to addressing most of the current issues. I believed the government were committed to the action before any General Election or as pledges in the election when it takes place. Together was a good series of questions in which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats emphasised their wish for an immediate General Election and for the Prime Minister to emphasise his intention of getting on with his plan, and policies, Labour Members, raised issues. pressing for alternatives in an orderly fashion without upsetting the fragile unity.
The main event was the motion of the Scottish and Welsh Nationalist parties for a dissolution of Parliament. Their motives were clear. They wanted to bring down the government as a means if enhancing their position of separating full from the Union with England. The debate was arranged before the elections results were known. There was a great political knockabout between the Government Ministers and backbenchers and the Scottish Nationalists, and in which I thought the Government and the backbenchers won the argument effectively. There were two thoughtful and balanced contributions from within the Labour Party which concentrated on the need to put things right and on the dangers of holding an early election.
The start turns were the contributions made by two Conservatives. The first, by Deputy Leader William Hague was exceptionally funny as he poured scorn on recent developments, on the changing position of the Prime Minister and on the role of Peter Mandelson. While Labour Members praised his performance they did not change from their position, The second contribution ws of the highest order of serious about the predicament of Parliament and the responsibility of individual members to gain a mandate or not from the people. Richard Shepherd was concerned about the position of the Prime Minister and of the government but he appeared genuine in his distress about what had had happened and on the need for all Members to seek redemption before the Electorate. He was listened to in intense silence and won the respect of the House in what will be regarded as one of the great speeches of modern times. The motion was defeated by 340 to 268. That there was one the biggest votes of modern times is extraordinary given that there was between a score and one hundred Members present during the debate itself.
The most extraordinary aspect was eh the argument made by new Cabinet Minister to the Brown government Peter Hain who argued that to hold an election now would create chaos. At the same time the Prime Minister and other Government Ministers appeared to show no interest in shortening the summer recess from over three months to two. Anyone watching would have concluded with Richard Shepherd, A plague upon all your Houses. You continue to show a lack of respect and confidence in the British Voter. The Government and the Labour Party in general is destined to face a lasting political reaction of its own making.
No comments:
Post a Comment