Is It Time for Labour To Make A Clean Break With The Unions?

In recent times the relationship between Labour and the trade unions has become more strained. Tensions have been bubbling under the surface for a while, but have come to the forefront during the last few days. There is little love lost between Blairite figures in the party and leading trade union figures as demonstrated by Jim Murphy’s recent attack on Len McCluskey, the leader of Unite the country’s largest union.

The Labour Party was born out of the trade union movement and this alone means that there will always be close links between the two. They still have ties to many Labour MPs and are largely responsible for financing the Labour Party. However times have changed in recent years and the political climate is very different. The relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions is no longer as strong as it once was and for some it feels more like a millstone than a cause for celebration.

Gaining the support of the unions for any Labour leader was once seen as imperative, but now it is increasingly being seen as a poisoned chalice. Although their influence is useful in seeking the Labour leadership, after this their influence is largely perceived as negative. Ed Miliband never really shook off the tag of being the union’s man and was regularly mocked as a union puppet. Electorally this damaged Miliband and made him appear weak without the power to criticize the unions. It does not appear that a close link with the unions plays well with the voters.

Labour have struggled to compete financially with the Conservatives and do not have the number of large donors that the Tories have.  As a result, they remain overly reliant on the trade unions for financing, without which it is difficult to see how they could survive financially, raising questions about whether a break between Labour and the trade unions would be viable.

Due to the interwoven history of the two groups, it is hard to see how the link can ever totally be broken. However questions do have to be asked about whether the unions have too much influence in the Labour Party and whether this helps or hinders the Labour Party. Although Labour do benefit in some aspects from their close relationship with the unions, many now argue that the link stops Labour progressing. Maybe for both it is time for an amicable split.


Scottish independence doesn’t have to be inevitable!

The election night provided many notable stories. One of the most remarkable was what happened in Scotland. The SNP won 56 out of the 59 seats including some dramatic gains from the Labour Party.

The people of Scotland showed they had lost trust in the Westminster parties and didn’t appreciate being taken for granted. Whilst on the night this hurt Labour far more than the other parties, it should be seen as a failure for all the big parties who now all have almost no representation in Scotland.

This was not a vote for independence though or even a vote for an independence referendum. It was made clear independence wasn’t on the ballot paper this time and results may have been different if a referendum promise had been in the SNP manifesto.

Despite this, the chances of independence have risen after this result. There is a clear and obvious division now between the people of England (broadly Conservative) and people of Scotland (broadly independent socialists). In the election campaign the Tories successfully played on the fear of the SNP having an influence in a UK government. Whilst this clearly influenced voters England, it served to anger many voters in Scotland increasing the level of discord between the two nations.

However, independence is not inevitable. There is no overwhelming mood in Scotland for another independence vote yet, leaving a window of opportunity for Cameron. Cameron’s first task is to improve relations between the countries which clearly soured during the election campaign and then to display that he has understood the concerns of the Scottish electorate and respects what they have voted for.

Sturgeon is right to say that it cannot be business as normal. Cameron and the government have to make a clear and concise offer to the SNP and the Scottish government. This means delivering both on promises which have already been made and going even further. If done in the right way this could highlight how a devolved Scottish parliament could work in tandem with a Westminster government and render another vote on independence pointless.

On Friday morning after the election, we were probably closer to Scottish independence. The Scottish people had placed their faith in the SNP. What happens next is pivotal. Cameron has been given a clear mandate to lead England country, now he must do his part to save the Union.

Can we ever change political perceptions?

The ‘Shy Tory’ is a concept which has plagued pollsters since the 1992 election and last Thursday we saw it return with a vengeance. This concept is based on the idea that many voters are reluctant to admit they vote for the Conservatives and therefore mislead the polls. Why, because the Tories are still viewed as the nasty party and voters are scared of being associated with them, even if in reality they will vote for them.

This matters because in an open society people should be encouraged in expressing what they believe, including the political party which they support. Politics is surely at its best when a spectrum of different opinions are discussed and debated. This does not go for just the commentariat but for the general public as a whole. If people are scared to say what they really believe then politics and arguably society is the loser.

If this is to change and political debate is to become more open, then long held perceptions of political parties need to change. Political parties on all sides of the spectrum struggle with certain labels, often regardless of the reality. Labour have traditionally struggled to gain trust on the economy whereas the Tories have traditionally struggled to gain trust on the NHS. For a long time both parties have attempted to change these perceptions, but with very limited success. Therefore it is perfectly valid to ask whether these views can ever be changed.

Entrenched political views and ideas can be hard to change, but this is no reason to simply give up. The responsibility rests on us all, political parties, the media and the general public regardless of political views or persuasion to be less partisan and judge policies fairly rather than lazily judging based on political stereotypes which only further embeds long held perceptions.  Perhaps the biggest challenge will be for all political parties to stop using labels as a way of alienating the public from an opposition party.

This will inevitably be a long process we one that we ought to start now. Our country prides itself on freedom of speech and the freedom of expression and if people do not feel comfortable declaring who they will vote for, we have freedom of expression in word only. That is why the ‘Shy Tory’ voter should concern everyone interested in politics.


Chuka Umunna – Tessa Evans

Chuka Umunna’s withdrawal from the Labour leadership race this week, just three days after announcing his candidacy, came as a shock to the many who saw him as the man most likely to replace Ed Miliband. 

Blaming the “pressure and scrutiny” that came with the leadership campaign, the 36 year old said he was not comfortable with the attention on his private life, and had not anticipated the impact the press attention would have on those close to him.

The Shadow Business Secretary has been a subject of media attention since first being elected MP for Streatham in 2010. Lazily dubbed the “British Obama”, he was quickly singled out as a potential Labour leader, and investigations into his personal life gathered pace with his rapid rise to Shadow cabinet.

After announcing his bid for the leadership, however, Umunna and his family saw the level of attention increase instantly.

Umunna’s personal life began to face intense media scrutiny.  Laura Perrins, Co-Editor of The Conservative Woman, questioned the politician’s unmarried status, describing him as “too old” for a girlfriend and suggesting he may be a “narcissist” who “thinks no woman is really good enough for him”.

On Thursday Umunna’s mother was followed down the street by a journalist asking questions about her son’s private life. The incident is understood to have contributed to Umunna’s decision this morning to withdraw from the leadership race.

As Umunna’s withdrawal highlights, the media’s focus on personal life over policies is ultimately harmful to the public interest, discouraging potentially promising candidates from pursuing political office.

With Ed Miliband exposed as “caddish” for daring to have girlfriends before his marriage, and SNP MP Mhairi Black facing criticism for “vile” tweets she wrote as a teenager, it is clear that a career as a politician is off limits to anyone with more than the most dull of backstories. While the media demands politicians with “real life experience”, it simultaneously maintains the status quo; rewarding conformity and punishing any deviation from the norm.

Moreover, with the UK coming 43rd out of 186 countries for gender representation, we must question how many women are dissuaded from a career in politics by the intense scrutiny faced by female politicians, who face relentless commentary on their looks, bodies and fashion choices.

Coverage of former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s first statement in the Commons in 2007, for example, focused largely on her cleavage, with the Daily Telegraph running an article on her ‘weapons of mass distraction’.

July 2014’s cabinet reshuffle, moreover, provoked a full spread from the Daily Mail on the fashion choices of David Cameron’s new female ministers, in which Esther McVey was described as “keen to show off her toned legs” on the “Downing Street catwalk”.

The prospect of media scrutiny does more than simply deprive the political sphere of potentially colourful characters, it acts as a barrier to anyone who fears having their pasts investigated, their families harassed, their bodies and fashion choices examined or even, as Ed’s fateful bacon sandwich demonstrates, their table manners mocked.

Umunna’s withdrawal has been a significant blow for the Labour Party as it seeks to win over a fractured electorate. However, it may also symbolise something more worrying about our damaged political system. The current relationship between the press and the political sphere makes a career in politics off-putting for all but the blandest and bravest. With political engagement at an all time low, we must question a force that is able to intimidate a front-running candidate out of a leadership race in just three days, and ask ourselves what kind of people we want our leaders to be.

How Labour can win in 2020

The scale of Labour’s general election defeat, its worst since 1987, and the multitude of reasons behind it, coupled with the Conservative boundary changes, means that Labour has a mountain to climb to win in 2020. The triple bind of SNP’s inexorable rise, traditional Labour voters in the North switching to UKIP and the inability to convince English voters of Labour’s economic competency, perceived lack of centrist values and possible reliance on the SNP resulted in a perfect storm scenario for Ed Miliband. Although a Labour victory seemed unlikely in the light of the Conservatives’ commanding advantage in both economic management and Prime Ministerial ratings, calls to return to New Labour Mark II downplay the underlying reasons for this crushing defeat. A radical and multi-faceted approach is required if Labour intends to claw back a 100 seat deficit against a post-austerity Conservative Party by 2020.  After taking for granted its traditional voters in Scotland and the north, Labour now needs to reach out to these voters and address their concerns. In Scotland, a self-governing Labour party, which is no longer ran as a branch office is a must. An independent Scottish Labour should attack SNP’s lack of progressive credentials and redistributive policies, especially if full fiscal autonomy is granted to Scotland, thus depriving the nationalists of its get-out clause of blaming Westminster. This strategy, combined with the SNP’s inevitable drop from such dizzying heights, could be the beginning of Labour’s recovery in Scotland. The next Labour leader will also need to reach out to those UKIP voters left behind by New Labour and globalisation, breaching the subject of English identity, immigration, and possibly most importantly, integration in order to not alienate more centrist Labour voters and work within the realities of our (presumed) membership in the EU. The introduction of a contributory benefits system, as mooted by Jon Cruddas in the past, could also be a step in proving that Labour is on the side of workers and neutralising benefit tourism. Additionally, UKIP’s fluid positions on the NHS, tax cuts for the rich, small state neo-Thatcherism provide significant targets for Labour to attack on and win back disillusioned voters. Finally, Labour need to promote a more positive, aspirational message supported by economic credibility aimed towards the 90% of voters not in the super-rich apex or the disadvantaged base of society, to win back marginal seats in the Midlands and South. If Labour can marry its credibility for the intrinsic social justice values present in the British electorate and demonstrate that it has learnt lessons from past mistakes on the economy, immigration and loyalty, then the long journey back to power can begin.

Labour can still win outright, here’s how!

Most pollsters and pundits seem to have already accepted the result of the next election. A hung parliament has been factored in and the only debate has been about the make-up of potential coalitions after the election.

Publicly Labour and the Conservatives refuse to listen to what the polls are saying and maintain that they are fighting for an overall majority. In order for Labour to form a majority they would need to improve significantly on the 256 seats they ended on at the dissolution of the Parliament, some 70 seats short of the 326 needed to form a majority. The current electoral system favours the Labour Party, even though they start from a pretty low base. The system generally means they will not have to poll as highly as the Conservatives to gain an overall majority.

Ed Miliband has been much maligned during his leadership and has trailed David Cameron significantly in the leadership stakes. An impressive performance in the television debates has greatly improved his numbers. If voters become less concerned about the prospect of Miliband becoming Prime Minister and the leadership numbers narrow between him and Cameron, Labour are likely to gain.

A proportion of voters are still not feeling the recovery and remain scared of potential Tory cuts, most notably in welfare. These fears alongside the negative campaign being fought by the Conservatives, leave room for a compelling Labour message which can still attract undecided voters.

By exploiting these factors, Labour should give themselves a good chance in many marginal seats. They would expect to take many seats off the Lib Dems who face the prospect of a hard election. This could bring Labour close to the finishing line.

The main problem for Labour is the SNP surge in Scotland. Labour HQ believe this will fade as the election draws nearer and voters’ minds in Scotland are focused on the choice between a Conservative government and a Labour government.

Labour have much to do and a long way to go to gain that  majority, but if these factors were all to line up there is still a possibility of a substantial late swing towards the party, perhaps even enough to see them across the line.

The Tories can still win outright, here’s how!

The televised debates between the major leaders have failed to yield a significant breakthrough for either of the two major parties according to the opinion polls. Both Labour and the Conservatives are still neck in neck with a hung parliament appearing to be the most likely outcome out of this General Election.

Both major parties and their leaders are insistent that they are still fighting for a majority. The Conservatives though arguably have an easier task as they ended Parliament with 302 MPs, less than 25 short of an overall majority. They could even achieve this by not taking any seats off the Labour Party and concentrating on winning seats off the Lib Dems.

Polling is not an exact science and has to be taken with a pinch of salt as evidenced by the polls of the 1992 General Election. Historically the polls have tended to underestimate the Conservative vote and traditionally there is also a late swing towards the governing party. If these factors were to occur again at this election, the Tories could perform better than any of the polls are currently suggesting.  Perhaps even 25 seats better.

The rise of the SNP offers more hope with the belief that voters in England will become more worried about a Labour government propped up by the SNP and so move towards the Tories. Allied to this, there are signs in some polls that UKIP’s vote is currently being squeezed. Proportionally UKIP still take more votes from the Tories than they do from Labour and if this squeeze materializes on Election Day, then this will benefit the Tories.

There is also a feeling within Tory HQ that people have not started paying attention to the forthcoming election yet and when this happens voters will inevitably move towards the Conservative Party. Questions over economic competence and leadership, both areas on which the Tories have a lead will come more sharply into focus in the final few days of campaigning.

A hung parliament may be seen as a given by most in the political bubble, but there is a plausible case to be made that the Tories can still win this election outright and can gain a majority. Inaccurate polls, a late swing to the governing party and the fear factor of the SNP.  Suddenly 25 extra seats might not be so far out of reach.


UKIP’s populism in action

As the UK elections are approaching, the uncertainties how the people will vote are increasing. Polls demonstrate that there will be a new political player in the parliament- UK Independence Party.

UKIP is building the majority of its campaign on issues related to immigration and anti- European Union Policies. Every political party needs to have some strategy, but what the UKIP’s leader Nigel Farage did during the TV debate with the other leaders was disgusting. Mr Farage has stated that 60 % of the people diagnosed with AIDS each year are from overseas.  All of the participants in the leader’s debate have condemned Farage’s statement, except the Prime Minister. In the programme of the UKIP is stated that if its measures for insurance of each person coming to the UK are implemented ₤ 2 billion per year will be saved to the UK taxpayers.  However, the reasons of the majority of the immigrants in the UK are economic, instead of intentionally coming to benefit from the so called ‘health-tourism’. The case with the healthcare is different- the immigrants are also paying taxes hence they are also contributing to the UK economy. Why they will need to be double-taxed (to pay taxes and at the same time to pay for health insurance- something that already they have been paid for)?

Another ridiculous statement of UKIP is that the immigrants are taking the jobs of the British people. If you consider the facts carefully, there is still a demand for non-qualified jobs- like agriculture, cleaning etc. Looking at the percentage of the British people working in these sectors, simply there is no interest from the local people to work in these sectors. If there is a demand for the business, that means that the gap needs to be filled somehow and the absence of interest from the local population leads to these trends.

The people so easily forget the hysteria that was created by Nigel Farage the end of 2013, when the restrictions for the Bulgarian and Rumanian citizens were lifted. Mr Farage was making loud statements that as soon as the restrictions are lifted the entire population of these countries will come to the UK to live on benefits and to take the job of the British citizens. The actual reality was different, most of the people who had desire to come to the UK were already here, even before the accession of the two countries in the EU in 2007 there was a possibility for the people to obtain a working visa.

The main problems for the UKIP are the immigrants and the European Union. There is an absence of political solution to the problems. Unlike the other political parties, UKIP does not provide a comprehensive political programme, it just relies on the populist statements. The most ridiculous facts are that Mr Farage himself is with French origin and his second wife is German.

It needs to be emphasized that the politics of hatred should be avoided, at least from the major political players. The politicians should take responsibility for their actions and give an example to society. The British society has proved its tolerance and multicultural identity and have to continue being proud of itself. Of course there are two sides of every coin, so people also should take responsibility by reading carefully and thinking what the programmes of the political parties offer and whether the goals of the political parties could be implemented.

Labour must be more aggressive in fighting the SNP!

Recently Alex Salmond gave a very provocative interview to Andrew Marr in which he stated that ‘if you hold the balance, you hold the power’. He then went on to claim that any future Labour government would have to negotiate their budget with the SNP. This has drawn an angry response from Labour leader Ed Miliband who called these statements a combination of ‘bluff and bluster’. However this has not stopped the Conservatives and the Tory oriented press jumping on these comments.

The Conservatives have released a video showing Ed Miliband dancing as Alex Salmond plays a penny whistle. The Tories clearly believe this is a productive line of campaigning for them to take with a previous poster showing Ed Miliband tucked into Alex Salmond’s pocket. The comments from Salmond also featured prominently in much of the press with many traditional Conservative supporting newspapers reporting them and using them as an explicit warning.

With many people in England fearful about the influence the SNP may have after the next election and the personal disdain that is felt towards Alex Salmond, pressure was placed on Miliband to rule out a coalition with the SNP. This promise though has not stopped the story and so Miliband had little choice but to hit back hard over these comments. Being seen to be in cohorts with the SNP is an electoral millstone and Miliband must distance himself from Salmond and insist he will not work with the SNP.

However although they both protest, Salmond and Miliband are likely to need each other after the next election. Without Labour, the SNP have nowhere else to go. They have already ruled out a deal with the Conservatives and Scottish voters would look very unfavourably on any SNP party which took down a Labour government and let in a Conservative government.

Alex Salmond may have overplayed his hand and forced Labour into a corner where they have to come out swinging. Labour can seriously weaken Salmond’s position by holding onto their Scottish MPs but to do so they will have to adopt a more aggressive approach to the SNP. Miliband must show that he is the one calling the shots and not Salmond. This will not be easy against the old wily political campaigner though.


Our leaders still have a lot to give even when they step down from their roles!

Party politics is a cut throat business. An incumbent Prime Minister cannot now expect to survive a bad election result and remain as leader of their party. This forces former Prime Ministers onto the back benches only for them to leave the political stage as soon as possible to pursue alternative careers away from Westminster.

Recently David Cameron has stated his aim to remain in the House of Commons after he stops being leader of the Conservatives and Prime Minister. In modern times this would much make him a rare exception but one who could benefit his own party and also the British parliament. A former Prime Minister or leader of his party would have considerably experience, insight and expertise that should only add to our Parliament.

The only former Prime Minister sitting in the Commons at the moment is Gordon Brown. For much of the last five years he has been conspicuous by his absence and we have rarely seen him on the national stage. We saw from his late intervention in the Scottish independence referendum debate that he still has a lot to give, and his absence from the Commons appears to have been a missed opportunity. Brown will stand down at this election and there is a perception that much of his final five years in conventional politics have been wasted.

It is hard for any Prime Minister to take a step back once they have been removed from their position. Going from being the leader to being one of the troops again is understandably difficult. Add to this the opportunity to go and fulfill other dreams and interests, and the perception from your own party that your continuing presence is a liability to them, the decision to step down is often an easy one. However, if more could be done to encourage them to stay in the Commons, this could benefit party, parliament and the country.

As elder statesmen, former Prime Minister’s hold rare positions.  They have witnessed, experienced and been part of much and that means they still have much to give. David Cameron’s intentions are to be welcomed and we can but hope that in the future he will be one of many former Prime Ministers that opt to stay in Parliament and continue to contribute to public life in this way.