8 important trends in British politics

The end of one year, and the start of another, is a good time for reflection. So I thought I'd step back from the day-to-day churn of British politics and think about the underlying trends we have seen illuminated in 2015. 

It is easy to miss many of these due to a focus on the everyday or short-term, or because of the news media's habit of exaggerating some things while overlooking others. 

What, then, are the big current trends in British politics that we can discern from events in 2015? In no particular order...

1. The Tories are steady but going nowhere. 

There was a lot of exaggeration in the responses to the Tories' general election victory. The fact that nearly everyone had forecast a hung parliament meant that a tiny Tory majority appeared to be a spectacular triumph, rather than a very narrow win helped by the electoral system. The long-term trend for the Tories has been one of decline: compare its vote share from anywhere between the 1950s and 1992 with its results since 1997 and this is clear. It is also reflected in falling membership. 

It is unlikely that the Tories will ever again reach 40% in a UK-wide general election (if Scotland gains independence, it might be a different matter). There is no particular reason to believe that the Tories will improve on its 2015 vote share. They can form a majority government on no more than 37% of the votes - as we've seen - and the likely boundary changes means this will certainly be possible in future. But I don't see how the Tory Party can restore the dominance it had in the 1980s (conversely, I don't see any reason to predict a significant fall in its support).

2. The Lib Dems have collapsed. 

The Lib Dems and its predecessor parties have historically had a small core voting base. But at times this has been boosted as a result of careful positioning - or opportunism - allowing the party to pick up votes from those disaffected with other parties. The 2010 election was a peak in this respect, with the Lib Dems benefiting from widespread disillusionment with 13 years of Labour government (but also the fact that the Tories had not entirely 'detoxified' after the experiences of the 1980s and 1990s). 

Being the junior partner in a Tory-led coalition for five years led to collapse and only 8 Lib Dem MPs were elected in May. There are no indications of any Lib Dem revival, not any reason to expect one as the party has no obvious purpose. It has returned to being a party that derives votes largely from a core base of mainly middle class and centre-ground voters, polling below 10%. 

3. The SNP dominates Scottish politics.

The SNP landslide in May - taking 56 out of 59 Scottish seats at Westminster - was a genuine political earthquake. There is every reason to expect another SNP landslide in May's Holyrood elections, with the party forecast to increase its majority in the devolved Scottish parliament still further. 

This has been a long-term process and the independence referendum accelerated Scottish Labour's decline and the SNP's ascendancy. Many people on the Labour left simply don't grasp how much Scottish politics has been transformed, and naively think that Labour can win back lost support. This involves under-estimating how discredited Labour has become, how strong the SNP's support base now is, and how important the questions of independence and (more immediately) home rule, or increased powers, are for left-leaning Scottish voters. 

4. Ukip is past its peak, while the far right is defunct.

I've been saying this for over a year: Ukip has already reached its peak. It took roughly one in eight votes nationally in May and there's simply no reason to expect it to improve on this in future local or general elections. It has a fairly settled voter base and is incapable of getting people elected in first-past-the-post elections. The fact that its sole MP, Douglas Carswell, is in open conflict with party leader Nigel Farage gives a strong sense of the problems it faces. Whatever happens in the EU referendum, it is likely to damage Ukip: once it's taken place, Ukip's core aim has been removed from the political landscape. 

The rise of Ukip is one reason, of course, why the traditional far right is absolutely nowhere. Dedicated anti-fascist campaigning also played its part, as did the far right's propensity (especially when under pressure and suffering defeats) for in-fighting. The British National Party imploded a little while ago and has not been replaced.  

5. Labour is shifting leftwards. 

For those of us on the left, the most important - and hopeful- trend is what's happening in the Labour Party. This is one that has taken everyone by surprise: 2015 has been a real game-changer for Labour. It was widely assumed that general election defeat would be followed by a consensus around moving Labour somewhat to the right. Jeremy Corbyn's huge popular success in the leadership race, galvanising a mushrooming of Labour Party membership and a renaissance for the left, changed everything.

What we are seeing is the widespread disaffection with a hollowed-out social democracy finding expression - in a unique way - through the established, and largely discredited, social democratic party itself. This results from a combination of factors and has led to a fierce conflict within the Labour Party. How this plays out is not yet settled, but Corbyn and the left do have some distinct advantages. The 'moderates' in the Parliamentary Labour Party are reconciling themselves to it being near-impossible to challenge Corbyn's position. 

6. The Green Surge is a fading memory. 

The Green Surge began in summer 2014 and continued until the general election in May 2015. There was a huge increase in membership combined with a small tilt leftwards in its profile and composition. This demonstrated - together with the SNP's triumphs - that Labour can indeed leak votes to its left, and suggested there is significant electoral space for a party positioned (in however ambiguous and tricky a manner) to the left of the neoliberal mainstream. 

Corbyn's rise to the Labour leadership has changed all that. Apparently, there has been little direct effect on Green Party membership. But there's no doubt that the whole dynamic underpinning the Green Surge - disillusionment with a rightwards-leaning Labour Party sending people to the Greens - has simply gone. This will surely be reflected, in the next year or two, in membership figures, the composition of the party and the votes it receives, most likely starting with disappointing votes in London and local council elections in May. 

7. The independent left is marginalised electorally. 

While Labour's left turn may have damaged the Greens' prospects, it has wiped out any chance of explicitly socialist organisations like TUSC or Left Unity making any progress (assuming Corbyn continues as Labour leader). These outfits were already achieving miserable results in elections - and that was before a socialist was elected to lead the Labour Party. 

I also expect the new Scottish left formation RISE to do badly in May's Holyrood elections, though I wish them well. I'm not sure there is space for something new - resting on a relatively small layer of activists, with no existing profile - when the field is already crowded with SNP, Labour and Greens. I hope to be proved wrong - we will see. 

8. Strikes remain a rarity, but unions and movements are important political players. 

Since the early 1990s there hasn't been a single year when more than two million strike days have been recorded - a sustained period of low trade union combativity like never before. This is a crucial and highly significant long-term trend for the left to register. It continues to be a major weakness on our side - and the effects of the historic defeat of the unions can be seen, for example, in the downwards trend in real-terms pay for the last seven years. 

Nonetheless, trade unions and protest movements alike have played an influential role in recent years. Street protest has been, for many years and across a wide range of issues, a central part of opposition to government policies. This year, the People's Assembly's national demonstration in June was a particular high point, while Stop the War Coalition has repeatedly made the news, especially around the Commons vote to bomb Syria. It will again play an important role in 2016 around the issue of Trident replacement as well as Syria. The connection between protest movements and Corbyn's rise to the Labour leadership has in some ways amplified the impact campaigners can make. 

Share

No, Jackie Slesenger, it is not anti-Semitic to protest against the killing of over 2000 Palestinians

Assembling for a 1000-strong march in Newcastle, July 2014

Jackie Slesenger, a Newcastle city councillor, has written an article for The Journal newspaper with the headline 'Harmonious race relations are being damaged and may take years to repair'.

Her target is not any racist organisation or policy, but rather our city's vibrant and diverse movement for peace and justice in Palestine.  

It indicates the remarkable impact of our city's protests and campaigning against Israeli violence in Gaza that an uncritical supporter of Israel like Jackie Slesenger has written this. It is a sign of acute weakness on the part of Slesenger and other defenders of Israel's sustained onslaught on Gaza's civilian population. Let's remember that Israeli forces killed over 2000 people including 500 children, destroyed basic infrastructure and made many more Palestinians homeless.

All this has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, contrary to her utterly unfounded claims. Sadly she appears to be cynically using that baseless smear to cover for - and justify - her support for Israel's obscene violence against Gaza. This regrettably obscures the real issues in Palestine and makes it harder for all of us to confront genuine cases of anti-Semitism.

There is absolutely no need for anyone to resign from the Newcastle Holocaust Memorial Day committee, as she has done. It is meant to be a commemoration independent of any other political disagreements.

Slesenger is the one who has dragged the issue of commemorating the Holocaust into debates about Palestine. This does a massive disservice to both the Holocaust's victims and the contemporary politics of Palestine.

I am proud to have helped organise Newcastle's protests, marches and vigils for Gaza during the summer, and to be working with people of all backgrounds to build an on-going movement for peace and justice in the Middle East. This is a movement with opposition to all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism, at its core.

Share

Newcastle opposition leader complains about show of solidarity with Gaza

Anita Lower, leader of the Lib Dem opposition group on Newcastle Council, has attacked David Stockdale, a fellow councillor, for raising the Palestinian flag above Newcastle Civic Centre. The flag flew very briefly as a gesture of solidarity with those under attack in Gaza.

Lower boasted to local paper, the Chronicle, that she had made an official complaint to the council's legal department about the Labour councillor who has been active in recent protests against Israel's war on Gaza, demanding disciplinary action.

The raising of the flag was the symbolically powerful climax of a vigil and 'die-in' called by Newcastle Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other local groups, to commemorate those killed in Gaza and to demand an end to the killing.

It was one of several protests in Newcastle, including a march and rally of around 1000 people on 26 July, calling for an end to Israel's assault on Gaza, which has resulted in around 2000 deaths, much higher numbers of wounded and displaced people, and the destruction of vital infrastructure.

The vigil and 'die-in' attracted around 100 people and took place on Tuesday 5 August. Lower has falsely claimed that it was on 4 August, the centenary of Britain entering World War One, and said that "the day on which it happened too was disrespectful.”

David Stockdale has said he stands by his action. He has pointed out that nobody has complained to him in person.

David Stockdale recently visited the occupied West Bank himself, together with other local councillors, and is returning there next month. He and other councillors are developing supportive practical links with Palestinians suffering in conditions of occupation, discrimination and violence.

The 'die-in' and the raising of the flag were a small, but symbolic, part of a proud Newcastle tradition of expressing opposition to injustices elsewhere in the world. Newcastle University was famously the only British university to honour Martin Luther King while the great civil rights leader was still alive. Newcastle Council gave Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city in 1986, when he was still in jail and Margaret Thatcher regarded him as a 'terrorist'.

David Faulkner, a Lib Dem councillor and former council leader, spoke at the vigil on 5 August himself. Like all the recent protests, it was entirely non-party political. It is deeply regrettable that the Lib Dem opposition leader should have associated her party with attacks on those who have stood in solidarity with Gaza and opposed Israel's war.

The Chronicle article comes just a few days after the same paper used its front page to smear Dipu Ahad, another councillor who has been active in the wave of local protests against Israel's war. The source of that story was local members of the hardline racist English Defence League members, who had attempted to whip up an online campaign against Dipu Ahad. The EDL had previously gathered at a vigil (on 13 August) where they shouted abuse at people reading aloud the names of children killed in Gaza.

It is to be hoped that Lib Dem councillors in Newcastle will distance themselves from their leader's attacks on councillors who show solidarity with Palestine and on the wider anti-war and solidarity movement.

UPDATE ON THURSDAY: The Chronicle has responded to complaints and agreed to publish a correction and apology on page 2 of tomorrow's edition, clarifying that the vigil was not on 4 August and did not coincide with the World War One centenary. I am not yet aware of any apology for this slander from Anita Lower or her party.

Share

A hot autumn can crack this weak coalition

Boris Johnson is championed as an alternative to Cameron

Is the current unstable government doomed to collapse before the general election scheduled for 2015? Many people certainly think so. A new opinion poll shows that only 16% of those polled think it will make it to the scheduled general election intact.

David Cameron hoped for an Olympic bounce. It hasn't happened. Boris Johnson is the only Tory who appears to have been boosted by the Games - something that surely won't last long - adding to speculation about him being a possible sometime challenger for the leadership of the Tory party. That is not what Cameron wanted.

Tensions in the coalition

The Olympics were punctuated - on Monday 6 August - by the news that the coalition would have to abandon both reform of the House of Lords and proposed changes to constituency boundaries. This may appear trivial - Lords reform is hardly the NHS, is it? - but it is very significant. Tim Montgomerie, editor of Conservative Home website, claimed it was the worst single event for the Tories since Black Wednesday in 1992.

Is that an exaggeration? Actually he might just be right. The boundary changes – reducing the number of Commons seats to 600 - would have improved the Tories' chances of winning seats at the next general election. Scrapping them is bad news for them. But it's more than that: the apparent collapse of these plans indicates a new low in relations between Tories and Liberal Democrats. It also increases the turmoil on the Tory backbenches in the here and now - it's not just about what will or won't happen in 2015.

Tory backbenchers were indignant about plans to reform the House of Lords so it would have at least a semblance of democracy. Scuppering those plans infuriated Lib Dems, who have spent over two years repeatedly caving in to the Tories. So they retaliated by withdrawing support for boundary changes.

This doesn't make any of them look good. Nick Clegg’s party might have earned respect for taking a stand over student fees or the NHS, but Lords reform? It's hardly the burning issue for voters suffering from cuts, growing unemployment, pay restraint and rising inflation. Tory backbenchers are unable to grasp that their pet subjects - gay marriage is another one - are not the things that animate most people they hope to win over.

The Tory leadership looks weak because they can't contain their own backbench MPs. Boris Johnson is, however preposterous it may seem, acting as a rallying point for the disaffected. And all of this appears to be happening in a Westminster bubble, drifting free from the concerns of those who MPs are supposed to represent.

Tory delusions

We should also pause to note that the Tories have a grossly inflated view of their electoral chances anyway. To form a majority government in 2015 they would need to increase their support on their 2010 results. Every indicator suggests they have lost support and are unlikely - considering the impact of austerity and lack of an economic recovery in sight - to regain it. It is unlikely they will even be in a position to form another Tory-led coalition next time around, whether that's in 2015 or sooner.

The Tories still aren’t reconciled to the fact they didn’t win the last general election. Having failed to achieve a majority they had to accept governing in coalition, but tend to see their junior partners as an unwanted nuisance. The more hard-right elements constantly bemoan the Lib Dems’ moderating influence, something which must have passed the rest of us by.

It is also absurd for them to promote Johnson as an alternative. As mayor of London until 2016, it is stretching credibility that he could challenge for the leadership before a general election, but it’s tenuous even to suggest he could do so immediately after that. This promotion of Johnson has developed partly because there are no other serious alternatives to Cameron – the other name sometimes floated is Michael Gove, which tells us something about Tory MPs’ grasp of political reality.

Austerity isn’t working

There has also been the lowering of growth forecasts by the Bank of England and reports of rising inflation, both of them indicators of the economic trough we're in. There is polling evidence that a growing number of people blame this government and regard austerity as a failure, seeking a 'Plan B' involving job creation and investment.

The Tories have also suffered declines in both membership and income, with many millionaire donors apparently deserting them. As for the coalition's junior partners, nothing seems to be going the Liberal Democrats' way. It was recently reported that their membership fell by a quarter during 2011, thought to be an unprecedented decline in a single year for a mainstream party.

So their side is a mess: ill-disciplined and fighting each other; losing votes, money and members; increasingly blamed for the gloomy economic outlook; and failing to capitalise on a widely popular Olympic Games. But, despite all that, they need each other and will cling on for dear life. An early election would benefit neither coalition party. The only thing that allows them to keep imposing cuts is the weakness of the opposition.

This is where we come in. Ed Miliband will continue to be mostly ineffectual. We can't rely on him and the official Opposition to mount effective opposition to cuts and privatisation. The key determinant is extra-parliamentary action: our power is on the streets and in the workplaces.

The TUC's national anti-cuts demonstration on 20 October can be even bigger than the demo on 26 March 2011, which drew half a million people. It will be confronting a government that is weaker - more fractious, discredited and despised - than last March. A massive turnout can further damage the coalition.

It is, however, unlikely to be a killer blow. We will need sustained action - local protests, co-ordinated strikes, further national mobilisations - to build on the demonstration and amplify its voice. We have to constantly champion the alternative to austerity: create jobs, tax the rich, democratise the banks. We will need to strengthen the links with those fighting austerity across Europe and lay the ground for co-ordinated mobilisations.

Their side is weak. It is time for our side to use its strength.

Share

Troubled times for Westminster politics

I commented the other day on opinion polling which found that all the three main political parties are, in different ways, doing badly: falling approval ratings for the coalition government, declines in the personal ratings of David Cameron and Ed Miliband, and an awful result for Liberal Democrats in the survey of voting intentions.

The governing parties are faring poorly but there's little enthusiasm for Labour, which is simply soaking up disaffection with the Lib Dems. The political backdrop is a fragile coalition of convenience attempting to make deep cuts to public services, but also a broad consensus among all three main parties that cuts are 'necessary' in the context of a crisis for capitalism.

Now there's another reason for the Tories to worry. And yet another warning to Labour leaders not to complacently assume they can sit back and allow the coalition to self-destruct. The Tories' problem is members; Labour's worries are financial.

The Mail on Sunday reported a significant fall in Tory Party membership since 2005: 'Under Cameron’s leadership Tory membership nationally appears to have fallen by about a third, from 259,000 to 177,000.'

This may come as a surprise. In 2005 the Tories lost a third successive general election. Cameron took over from Michael Howard. Since then, you might think, there will have been a rise in party membership. Yet the opposite is true.

If membership keeps falling at this rate, the Tories will struggle to maintain an activist base to help deliver it election victories on the ground. Business donations keep the party well funded, but for campaigning purposes it also helps to have a solid base of activists and members.

Meanwhile, Labour List comments on Labour's funding crisis. Membership has grown since last May - though it's still under half of the 400,000 members the party had in 1997 - but the level of donations from members and supporters is very poor.

Labour's reliance on union funding makes it especially vulnerable when you remember there could be legislation massively curtailing how much the unions can donate. If such proposals become law the Labour Party could face an even deeper financial crisis than it has now.

Ed Miliband's new package of 'reforms', which were the subject of much media attention a few days ago, are unlikely to mark a break from the past. As one blogger notes: 'His hopes for Party 'reform' are of a piece with the New Labour project of detaching the Party from unions and working class communities, substituting instead a centralised leadership pushing a consumer politics to a passive electorate.'

In summary: the Tories are rapidly losing members, Labour doesn't have any money, and the Lib Dems may have members and money but nobody will vote for them.

The Lib Dems have collapsed because they went into coalition with a viciously right wing Tory Party, thus losing their left-of-centre voters. Labour is scarred by its failures over 13 years in office and still failing to articulate an alternative to the government, especially on austerity, and thus can't generate popular enthusiasm (and the donations which follow).

The Tories' falling membership is, I would speculate, linked to two phenomena. One is the fact there isn't - contrary to claims from some commentators - a resurgence of right-wing politics among the population. This is not like the 'Loadsamoney' era, with a cocky right wing in the ascendancy. Tory support is more grudging, cynical and guarded, and there's a strong bloc of left-of-centre public opinion.

The other, interrelated, factor is the general wariness of mainstream politics and its institutions, symbolised by the expenses scandal but not entirely caused by it.

Does this crisis of mainstream politics mean there is a flourishing of alternatives either to the left or on the far right?

The good news is that the fascist BNP had awful results in the local elections last year and again this year. It has as good as collapsed. UKIP may get some decent results or polling, but I see no evidence to suggest they should be treated as more than a fringe irrelevance.

Unfortunately the radical left has done rather terribly in recent elections, with Respect struggling to retain its few council seats and the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) failing to get off the starting blocks. The Scottish radical left also got poor results in May.

The 'First Past the Post' system doesn't help. The Labour-union link remains a serious obstacle too. The tendency for left-wing voters to 'rally to Labour' as a bulwark against a Tory-led government is also a problem.

The Green Party is doing better, though not as well as some might expect. Perhaps it isn't really big and mainstream enough to capitalise on disillusionment with the main parties.

The only party doing well, it seems, is the Scottish National Party. The SNP's success means a whole separate analysis is required to explain Scottish politics. Its recent victory in the Scottish Parliament was on the back of opposition to all the Big Three UK-wide parties, maybe suggesting an alternative to Tories, Labour and Lib Dems can score electoral success when it is perceived as credible.

I'm reluctant to make predictions. There are positive and negative potential consequences from all the above. One point to note, though, is that any possible social unrest - like in Spain or Greece - will emerge in a context where established, 'official', politics is weaker and more hollowed-out than ever before. Exactly what that means for the future of British politics is hard to say.

Share

New poll: bad news for politicians

New ICM poll: voting intentions

'Labour must support the 30th June strike, or become irrelevant in the eyes of an increasing number of its key supporters.'

So tweets Simon Hewitt, of the Latte Labour blog. And he's right. I'll come back to this point, but first let's look at what the new Guardian/ICM poll tells us about the governing parties.

The coalition's approval rating has fallen since March. Compared with last summer it has collapsed. 50% of those polled now say the coalition is doing a bad job, while only 35% say it is doing a good job. An approval rating of -15% is bad news for Tories and Lib Dems alike.

It is grim for the junior partner. The poll puts support for Lib Dems at just 12%. While this may not seem too gruesome - many other polls have put the party even lower - ICM consistently gives the Lib Dems a higher rating than other polls, for reasons unfathomable to me. 12% marks a significant drop since March.

Though the Tories fare better, David Cameron - who tends to come out of opinion polls better than either his party or government - has a negative rating for the first time (-5%). This compares with +23% last June.

Whether you look at the coalition's approval ratings, the parties' poll figures or Cameron's personal rating, things have got worse for those in office.

What, then, of the Opposition? We might expect Labour and its leader, Ed Miliband, to fare well. Yet Miliband's personal ratings are very poor. At -21% his rating is slightly worse than Nick Clegg's, which in a perverse way can be considered quite an achievement.

Miliban's party has gained support in the polls, on the back of disenchantment with the government (especially with the Lib Dems, due to their opportunistic role in a right-wing regime imposing cuts). But there's no evidence of popular enthusiasm for Miliband and Labour.

This is no surprise. Miliband has failed to oppose an increasingly unpopular government. He is still failing. Nobody knows what Labour's policies are. Miliband sends out contradictory messages, appears weak and indecisive, misses opportunities, and equivocates about opposing the cuts.  

It isn't merely a personal failing. Labour remains tied to most of the assumptions and ideas which guided its 13 years in government. Miliband and Ed Balls can't decide what position to adopt towards the pensions issue, but they are definitely unwilling to adopt a stance of uncopromising opposition to the coalition's pensions 'reform'.

So they end up sounding confused and incoherent, gently deriding the government for adopting the wrong tone - more than it criticises it on grounds of substance - while saving stronger words of censure for trade unions standing up to a huge attack on their members' pensions.

Labour is compromised by its own past. How can Labour leaders firmly oppose pensions 'reform' when they started the process in government? How can they gain political capital from hatred of higher tuition fees when it was a Labour government which introduced fees and commissioned the Browne report? How can a party which paved the way for marketisation of the NHS gain from widespread opposition to government health policy?

Yet, despite all that, Labour could still adopt new policies which decisively break from the neo-liberal logic of its past. I suspect any policies at all would benefit Miliband's personal ratings - he remains an invisible man, politically indistinct - but the party as a whole would gain support from clear alternative policies to a government hellbent on destructive cuts.

I imagine close advisors of Miliband will be giving him the opposite advice. Tack to the right, they'll say, because the Tories' economic policies have higher approval than Labour's, and Cameron fares better as party leader.

It won't occur to them that Miliband's endless vacillating and indecision, his failure to clearly articulate opposing views to Cameron and Osborne, might be part of the problem. Or that millions of people disaffected with official politics may be motivated and enthused by a Labour leadership which takes the fight to the Tories, says 'there IS an alternative', and then outlines what that is.

If Miliband and Balls continue along their current track, they are doomed to appear irrelevant to most of the people wanting a fightback against cuts. It will be like a re-run of Neil Kinnock's lukewarm opposition to the poll tax, and refusal to back the many millions of people refusing to pay it, which allowed the Tories to unexpectedly win the 1992 general election.

Share

Chicken Clegg: victory for anti-cuts campaigners in Newcastle!

Newcastle is now a Clegg Free Zone

This comes via the popular Facebook Event page for Thursday's protest at Nick Clegg's planned Newcastle visit.

I'll just flag up the appeal to participate in Saturday's UK Uncut protest in Newcastle. It's part of a national day of action for the NHS: meet at Grey's Monument at noon.

'The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has pulled out of his keynote speech ‘rebalancing the economy’ at the IPPR regional conference this Thursday. Coming on the back of the recent devastating council elections in the region, and a broad-based demonstration against the Liberal Democrat leader planned for the day one can only assume that he was unwilling to face those the government has let down in the region.

Cuts to our public services, a massive hike in tuition fees, the scrapping of the Education Maintenance Allowance and a whole host of other issues have caused anger across the political spectrum.

The question that must be asked is that if Newcastle was still a Liberal Democrat controlled council, if Nick Clegg had opposed the tuition fee increases (as he had pledged) and the NHS reforms(as the rank and file members of the party demand) would he be pulling out of this conference at the last minute?

The government is currently involved in a ‘listening exercise’ on the NHS reforms. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister is unable to visit the city of Newcastle at the thought of Health Professionals, students and members of the public showing their opposition to the plans of the coalition government. Maybe it is because he knows the truth that the changes to the NHS are bad for patient health, yet he is failing to provide adequate opposition to these reforms.

The issue has not gone away with Nick Clegg’s withdrawal. The NHS is still being privatised by stealth and we must do all we can to continue to highlight how damaging reforms to the NHS will be to both patients and health workers.

The demonstration must still go ahead to show Nick Clegg that this was not about humiliating the Liberal Democrat leader, but highlighting the wreckage this government is creating out of our NHS, Higher Education and public services.

Come down to the demonstration on Thursday: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=193887673991020

Join the UK Uncut action on Saturday: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=217960824896731

We must unite to show this government there is an alternative and that hiding from the public simply isn’t good enough.'

If you want more info on what's going on locally with regard to the NHS 'like' Keep Our NHS Public North East: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Keep-Our-NHS-Public-North-East/142954425772617

The message above is via this Event page: https://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=193887673991020


Share

Lib Dem meltdown: election results in Tyne and Wear

All five metropolitan boroughs in Tyne and Wear went to the polls yesterday, with a third of seats in each borough up for grabs. That's the Labour-controlled Sunderland, Gateshead and South Tyneside councils, plus North Tyneside where there was previously no overall control and Newcastle which had a Lib Dem majority since 2004.

The big story is that Labour now has a majority in Newcastle, which I predicted HERE. Newcastle is one of a number of significant switches from Lib Dem to Labour in northern cities, reflecting the massive turn against the Lib Dems in what had traditionally been Labour areas.

Disillusioned ex-Labour supporters who voted Lib Dem in recent years have emphatically returned to Labour. This is clearly prompted by disgust at the role of Nick Clegg's party in a right-wing government. It is the backlash against cuts.  

Labour now has a majority in North Tyneside too, making enough gains to shift it from no overall control. The party therefore has majorities in all five local councils.

In Labour-controlled councils the party made further gains, with net increases of 4 seats in Sunderland, 3 in South Tyneside and 4 in Gateshead. My own area of Gateshead sums up the deep crisis for Lib Dems locally: they were defending 5 seats, but only held one.

There isn't a single Tory on Gateshead Council, so across 22 wards the coalition parties won just one seat yesterday. Across all five boroughs the Tories and Lib Dems have been soundly defeated and marginalised.

Share

Newcastle: a picture of Lib Dem decline

I've written this piece for Comment is Free, which begins:

'It was the week of the Commons vote on allowing universities to increase student fees to £9,000 a year. Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats were split from top to bottom over the issue. Meanwhile, around 60 students were in the middle of a three-week-long occupation at Newcastle University, just one of the many occupations then sweeping the country's campuses.

The student activists decided to step up the pressure on the Lib Dems by sending a large group of student occupiers to the nearby Civic Centre, seat of the local council. They walked into the council chamber as the weekly council meeting was about to begin and staged a sit-in protest. On 9 December, the day of the vote, they led a demonstration through the city's packed shopping streets, which involved up to 3,000 students, sixth formers and their supporters. During the day of protests they marched to the Civic Centre no less than three times.'

Share

Barnsley by-election: barometer of popular discontent?

Last night's Barnsley Central by-election result is being widely reported as a crushing and humiliating defeat for the Lib Dems, whose candidate failed to even retain his deposit after taking just 4.2% of the vote. The party dropped from 2nd place in last May's general election to 6th place this time, after the winning Labour candidate and - in descending order - UKIP, Tories, BNP and an independent.

It is indeed a shockingly bad result for Clegg's party, even worse than would have been expected. But it was also an awful election for the Tories, whose candidate took only 8.25% of the vote (compared to Labour's winning total of 61%) and landed comfortably behind UKIP. Overall the election was a thumping vote of no confidence in the coalition government.

You can read too much into a single by-election result, but I'm not convinced by those who downplay it because of low turnout or the fact it was always a safe Labour seat. Turnout was 36.5%, which is respectable for a by-election and enough to give a strong indication of what to expect in a general election. Labour's victorious Dan Jarvis and his team will be very happy with receiving a total of 14,724 votes.

It was always going Labour's way, but that doesn't normally deter supporters of other parties from bothering to vote. The Lib Dems managed 17.2% last May, regardless of it being a safe Labour seat. Most of its former voters have clearly deserted the party. It looks like many of them have shifted to voting Labour, which reflects the widespread disillusionment with the coalition's junior partners among people who are instinctively left-of-centre.

It is, however, the desperately poor combined Tory and Lib Dem vote that really strikes me. This by-election was in South Yorkshire but the seat is extremely similar - in class composition and political tradition - to many constituencies here in the North East. It is rock solid Labour, with Lib Dems having picked up support in recent years on the back of disenchantment with the Blair/Brown governments.

Now it is returning to being a place of whopping Labour majorities, while Lib Dems and Tories alike are nowhere to be seen. It isn't the only constituency like this.

The main factor behind these electoral woes for the governing parties is surely the cuts. Opposition has developed more rapidly than many expected. Although that opposition is unevenly expressed, with strikes still at a low level, there is certainly a backlash at the electoral level.

What will, however, be really significant is if the national demonstration on 26 March marks a shifting of gears in the scale of active campaigning - through strikes, demonstrations, occupations, etc - against the cuts. Occasionally there is a single event that raises a movement to a higher level, so new opportunities are opened up in its wake. 26 March is more than just another demo - it is our chance to raise the opposition to cuts to a new level.

Share

Labour victory in Oldham - the bigger picture

Labour has increased its majority in Oldham East and Saddleworth. Yesterday's by-election saw the party comfortably see off the Lib Dem challenge, taking 14,718 votes compared to the Lib Dem candidate's 11,160 votes. This can safely be interpreted as what pundits call "a bloody nose" for the coalition government. It has happened at a time of shifting fortunes nationally for the main parties.

One national opinion poll in the last week put Labour 8 points ahead of the Tories, with Cameron's party attracting just 34% of the voters. The same poll was, relatively speaking, good news for the Lib Dems - it put the party on 12%, whereas some polls have had them falling below 10%.

It is also significant that, as Nigel Stanley succinctly explains, a decisive shift has taken place in public attitudes to the cuts. With this being the dominant issue of our times, there's undoubtedly a link between the shift in attitudes to cuts and the decline in the polls for both coalition partners.

It's the poor, beleagured Lib Dems who have been hardest hit. Their collapse is directly linked to how they garnered so much support in the first place, taking 23% of the popular vote in last May's general election. Crucially, they sold themselves to disillusioned Labour supporters as left-leaning, for example by promising to oppose higher student fees, VAT increases and Trident replacement.

The Lib Dems' role in a coalition government - and the consequent betrayals over fees, VAT and much else - has shattered its support. The party now has only its core base - 10% of the electorate at most - to rely on.

Nick Clegg's party has a narrower core constituency than Labour and the Tories. It normally reaches beyond this by appealing to disaffected Tories or disaffected Labour supporters - or often both at the same time. But emphatically placing itself on the Right and depriving itself of any distinct identity- by going into coalition with the Tories - has inevitably scuppered them.

The rise in support for Labour is overwhelmingly a symptom of people rejecting the Lib Dems (and to an extent the Tories) and the shift in public attitudes against the coalition's savage cuts. It doesn't reflect any great enthusiasm for Labour or any strengths on the part of hapless Ed Miliband, who has been notable for his remarkable inability to make any real political impact.

The Labour leadership barely even offers a dim echo of the anti-cuts and student movements building active resistance to the government's attacks. The nearest it gets is when it sticks up for modest reforms introduced by the previous government - Bookstart, EMA - which are now being scrapped. But it's obvious that Miliband and his shadow cabinet are in disarray, still unsure of what line of attack to adopt, incoherent in their policies and compromised by accepting the 'need' for cuts.

Jack Straw's recent racist comments served as a reminder of how rotten New Labour had become. The by-election is another reminder, triggering memories of the disgraceful race-baiting by Phil Woolas at the general election. There's little evidence that the Labour leader and his front bench team are willing to repudiate the whole degraded political culture of New Labour and unambiguously move beyond it.

Miliband still tries to appease the most fervent Blairites in his party, despite them being out of step with the vast majority of ordinary Labour party members.

Opinion polls and by-election results will reflect the growing opposition to the government. They are a source of hope and optimism. But what's really crucial in defeating the ConDems' austerity drive is what happens beyond parliamentary politics.

The student movement is reviving after the Christmas break. Anti-cuts campaigns and trade unions are starting to build a massive turnout for the TUC's national demonstration on 26 March. Some unions are discussing co-ordinated strike action.

Ed Miliband will at best meekly follow, but these grassroots movements of resistance that can lead the way in confronting a Tory-led government dedicated to destroying public services.   

Share

Lib Dem support in North East collapses to 4%

How do you go from 24% of the votes to just 4% in the polls? Ask Nick Clegg.

Ipsos Mori reports HERE:

'Across Great Britain as a whole, Liberal Democrat support has averaged 15% between June and November, less than two-thirds of the 24% of the vote that the party secured at the general election; the swing has been almost entirely to Labour, with the Conservatives holding the 37% they won in May.

But there have been big differences in the changes in support in different regions. In the North East, Liberal Democrat support has almost disappeared, falling to just 4% of those certain to vote, an overall swing to Labour of 19%.'

The exact figures are presented in a graph. In the general election the Tories took 24% in the region and the polls say 23%, so no real change. But the fall for the Lib Dems is, spectacularly, from 24% to 4%. Labour has gone from 44% to 62%.

Call me an over-simplistic polling analyst if you like, but that looks like a straightforward transfer of voters from LibDem to Labour. Why? Because the vast majority of this region's Lib Dem votes in the last election came from people who are basically centre-left or left-wing. They were disillusioned with the last Labour government, saw the LibDems as at least a little better, but are now repelled by Clegg and co's role in a right-wing government.
 
Following recent protests in Newcastle, and in the wake of this new polling data, I don't recommend Clegg visits us any time soon.
 
Share

Lib Dem leader of Newcastle Council lobbies MPs to oppose higher fees

'The Liberal Democrat leader of Newcastle city council has told students who occupied the council chamber that he will lobby party leader Nick Clegg not to raise tuition fees.

David Faulkner said he had a "fair dialogue" with the students and agreed to e-mail all the party's MPs voicing opposition to the fees plan.

MPs will vote on Thursday whether to raise tuition fees to £9,000 per year. Student protesters say they will occupy schools as well as universities.

Students in Newcastle entered the council chamber on Tuesday afternoon. Among their demands was for the council leader to lobby MPs against the plan to raise tuition fees.

Mr Faulkner, the council leader, said he was sympathetic to the students' views and said that if he had been an MP he would vote against the fees proposals.

As such he has agreed to send an e-mail to Lib Dem MPs, including Mr Clegg, saying he hoped they will "oppose the proposals".

"I understand the strength of feeling," said Mr Faulkner.

Students campaigning against higher fees and public spending cuts have been staging an occupation at Newcastle University - and the wave of occupations has seen at least four more occupations starting, in Bath, Bradford, Bristol and Goldsmiths.'

Via BBC News

See 'Day X in Newcastle: unite our forces on 9 December'

Share

Clegg planned before election to ditch fees pledge

We've become accustomed to Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems ditching pledges, but that doesn't make it any less outrageous that Clegg was already, prior to the general election, intending to drop his party's opposition to higher tuition fees at the first scent of a place in government.

Anger at Lib Dem betrayal was apparently a powerful component of Wednesday's demonstration against education cuts and increased fees. The party has committed electoral suicide, through this particular betrayal more than anything else. Its abandonment of one of the key policies in its general election platform highlights both the Lib Dems' hypocrisy and the broader democratic deficit in this country. It's no surprise there was such frustration and militancy on Wednesday.

Incidentally, I was in the balcony observing NUS Annual Conference, in Gateshead shortly before the general election, when the three Leaders' video messages were broadcast to delegates in the conference hall. Despite the presence of many Labour Students, Clegg got a better response (or less worse response) than Gordon Brown from delegates, precisely because he expressed his party's emphatic opposition to any increase in fees. A distant memory, but only seven months ago.

The Guardian reports:

'The Liberal Democrats were drawing up plans to abandon Nick Clegg's flagship policy to scrap university tuition fees two months before the general election, secret party documents reveal.

As the Lib Dem leader faces a growing revolt after this week's violent protest against fee rises, internal documents show the party was drawing up proposals for coalition negotiations which contrasted sharply with Clegg's public pronouncements.

A month before Clegg pledged in April to scrap the "dead weight of debt", a secret team of key Lib Dems made clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, the party would not waste political capital defending its manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees within six years.

In a document marked "confidential" and dated 16 March, the head of the secret pre-election coalition negotiating team, Danny Alexander, wrote: "On tuition fees we should seek agreement on part time students and leave the rest. We will have clear yellow water with the other [parties] on raising the tuition fee cap, so let us not cause ourselves more headaches."'

Share

Clare Solomon speaks up for students on Newsnight

Clare Solomon, president of University of London Union (ULU), argues for mass protest and direct action on last night's BBC Newsnight, following yesterday's anti-cuts and anti-fees demonstration. Also appearing: Jeremy Paxman, Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes, NUS President Aaron Porter.



Also see the excellent articles by Lindsey German and Nina Power on roughly the same issues.

Update: also see Laurie Penny's 'Inside the Millbank Tower riots'

Share

Nick Clegg's selective memory

Also see:
The Gulf oil spill of education reform
Mass movement needed to stop this attack on students

Share

Lib Dem conference: resolution 101

An exclusive sneak preview, obtained by Luna17, of a major resolution due to be proposed at this week's annual conference of the Liberal Democrats in Liverpool. Or maybe not. 

Conference notes:

1. The sharp decline in electorial support for the Lib Dems since May's general election, as recorded in opinion polls such as one recent poll indicating support as low as 12% nationally

2. The abandonment of the party by a large swathe of centre-left voters, disillusioned by the party entering a coalition with an aggressively right-wing Tory Party determined to erode the welfare state and public services permanently

3. The revival of electoral support for Labour, despite widespread dissatisfaction with the party from its 13 years in government, in a remarkably short space of time, to a large extent due to those who voted Lib Dem in May shifting allegiance

4. The commitment of leading party members, centred on the 'Orange Book' circles, to neoliberal policy, enabling them to sit comfortably in a government with David Cameron and George Osborne

5. The gullibility of The Guardian and other left-liberal commentators in deceiving themselves that the party is more left wing and progressive than it actually is

6. The growing tensions with those on the 'left' of the party, such as Charles Kennedy, who are dismayed by the party subsuming itself in a right-wing government imposing deep cuts

7. The recent private warning from a Lib Dem cabinet minister, as reported by Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer, that Lib Dem support in polls could plummet to as low as 5%, with the Tories on 25%, due to the likely unpopularity of the coalition following the 20 October comprehensive spending review announcements

Conference resolves:

1. To carry on regardless, in part because senior party members are immensely flattered to be in government and feel this overides other considerations, in part because there is greater ideological common ground with the Tories than has often been recognised

2. To play an important ideological role in legitimising the savage cuts to be announced in October, by giving hardline Tory policies a more sympathetic gloss

3. To clearly and unambiguously position the Lib Dems as a centre-right party, but with a hint of vaguely leftish rhetoric, in defiance of the disgruntled mutterings of Charles Kennedy and many grassroots members

4. To placate much of the party grassroots with empty phrases about pursuing tax evaders and claims that the party has 'influenced' our Tory senior partners, e.g. on civil liberties

Subject to amendment...

Share

Treasury: prepare for 40% cuts

The Observer has this report:

'Cabinet ministers have been ordered by the Treasury to plan for unprecedented cuts of 40% in their departmental budgets as the coalition widens the scope of its four-year austerity drive.

The eye-watering demand from the chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, was sent this weekend to cabinet colleagues ahead of a week in which ministers will step up emergency cost-cutting across the public sector.

The only departments not included in the Treasury trawl will be health and international development, which have been "ringfenced" for the current parliament. Education and defence will also escape lightly. Alexander has told the education secretary, Michael Gove, and the defence secretary, Liam Fox, to plan for two scenarios – cuts to budgets of 10% at best and 20% at worst over four years.

All other departments – including the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Transport – have been ordered to produce plans showing the impact of cuts of 25%, and at worst 40%.'

See also:
Budget: poorest tenth to suffer over 20% cut in income
Impact of cuts: 1.3 million jobs to go

Picture: Lib Dem Danny Alexander is right behind George Osborne


Share

Seumas Milne and Paddy Ashdown debate the war in Afghanistan

This appears to have been far more engaging than the England v Algeria game, which was happening at the same time.



Share

Would Charles Kennedy have eaten the Tory sausage?

Solomon Hughes, writing in the Morning Star:

'What is the Liberals' role in the Con-Dem coalition? I looked at The Spectator's editorial to try and understand this complex conundrum from the Conservative point of view. And the answer, in the age of new politics is: "Eat my Tory sausage!" Lib Dem gristle is just there to make you swallow our Tory cuts...

The magazine is naked in its loathing for the Tories' political "partners." This means it views their role with an unsentimental clarity. Under the headline "Victory," The Spectator says: "The strategy is fairly clear: give Lib Dems more Cabinet crowns and chauffeurs than they could have dreamed of. Tie them in for five years and have them defend Tory policy on the airwaves. And then, crucially, let them share the blame for the Irish-style spending cuts to come."

Not all Lib Dems, it seems, find the Tory sausage as appetising as Nick Clegg and Vince Cable apparently do. Charles Kennedy, former party leader, is one of those feeling rather queasy about it.

In today's Observer, Kennedy champions the legacy of Roy Jenkins, who he views as embodying a strong 'centre-left' current in the modern Lib Dems, while lambasting the right-wing 'Owenites' who, following David Owen, have previously been content to do deals with Tories. While polite and tactful about today's 'Owenites', the rebuke is unmistakeable. If he was still party leader, Kennedy seems to imply, a centre-right coalition would have been rejected.

Here is the most important paragraph:

'With uncharacteristic understatement, Paddy Ashdown described last week's events as "a rather unexpected moment". Certainly, they drive a strategic coach and horses through the long-nurtured "realignment of the centre-left" to which leaders in the Liberal tradition, this one included, have all subscribed since the Jo Grimond era. It is hardly surprising that, for some of us at least, our political compass currently feels confused. And that really encapsulates the reasons why I felt personally unable to vote for this outcome when it was presented to Liberal Democrat parliamentarians.'


Share