Uncategorized

Forty years ago Margret Thatcher walked into Downing Street and formed her first government. Sitting around the cabinet table for their first meeting were men (and it was all men apart from the Prime Minister) most of whom had already had a life of real achievement.

Three had won a Military Cross for bravery during the Second World War and there were 4 others who had also served in the conflict. There were successful businessmen such as Michael Heseltine who had set up Haymarket Publishing and become a millionaire in his 30s. Others had already served in high office including Peter Walker who had been Environment and then Trade and Industry Secretary. Lord Soames had served as Secretary of State for War, Foreign Secretary and British Ambassador to France. Keith Joseph had not only held office as a Minister under Macmillan and Douglas-Home but was respected as a deeply intelligent (and controversial) thinker about policy coming forward with ideas to promote the free market and individual freedom. Key Thatcherite policies such as privatisation, curbing the power of the trade unions and monetarist economic policy were derived from his stable of innovative policy thought and the think tank that he and Thatcher set up in the mid-1970s.

The youngest was David Howell aged 43 and none could be accused of being purely professional politicians in the sense of always having worked in or around politics.

Margaret Thatcher herself had worked a chemist, trained as a barrister and had already served just under 4 years as a cabinet minister as Education Secretary under Ted Heath.

As they met to agree the policies that would form the hallmark of the new government there was a clear direction that had been set out principally by Thatcher and Joseph in Opposition. That was to set a very different course than the one that had prevailed over the previous 15 years at least, arguably since the war, and manifestly different than the Labour government that had lost the 1979 election after a period when the UK had encountered severe economic problems.

Fast forward 40 years to today’s bickering cabinet which appears to have no direction and to a bunch of Conservative leadership contenders of which very few, if any, would have stood a chance of being included in the 1979 cabinet let alone being considered as a credible candidate for Prime Minister. What claims to stature or innovative policy thinking can any of them make? Which of their CVs would be considered as remotely as impressive as those sat round the same cabinet table 40 years ago? The only principles on display from most of the contenders are those of adapting your views and saying whatever is thought necessary to appeal to the ultimate arbiters in the leadership competition; the party members.

It is hard to pinpoint the exact cause of the huge decline in the calibre of politicians (the problem is not just restricted to the Conservatives but is highlighted by them because of the leadership competition). Clearly becoming an MP has become an unattractive option for those who have already achieved much in their life (with a few exceptions). Does the fault lie with a shrinking and increasingly, deeply, unrepresentative Conservative Party membership or a perceived need to take on younger people at the expense of those with more experience?

For whatever reason, heavy weight is most definitely one adjective that will not be applied to the line-up for the Conservative leadership crown and the likes of Howe, Biffen, Joseph, Whitelaw, Carrington, Soames, Maude, Hailsham, Pym and the Lady herself must be spinning in their graves with worry for the future of their Party and indeed the country.

Looking across at the North West, devolution is clearly beginning to make a difference. Since their elections in 2016, Steve Rotherham and Andy Burnham, as ex-parliamentarians growing into their new roles as the Mayors of Liverpool and Greater Manchester respectively, have begun to allow the two cities to have their voices heard on the national stage, as well as unlock access to millions of pounds worth of additional funding.

Meanwhile, the region with arguably the strongest sense of identity in the country and certainly a strong spirit of independence has just suffered yet another setback in achieving devolution. Given James Brokenshire’s announcement that the ‘One Yorkshire’ proposal does not meet the criteria for devolution, it’s back to the drawing board for the region’s political leaders.

Although not stated, it is well known in the region that one of the reasons for the knock back is the fear of at least one prominent Minister that a Yorkshire Mayor would always be a Labour Mayor. This is the same fear that caused many Conservative MPs in the area to lobby Ministers heavily against the previous Leeds City Region proposal which otherwise had a good head of steam and support from business as well as local authorities. Given Labour’s traditional success in the region, it’s understandable that some would come to that conclusion. Labour might hold 36 of Yorkshire’s 54 parliamentary seats, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that would translate to success at the mayoral level.

For South Yorkshire, the evidence is pretty clear as they have already headed to the polls to vote for a mayor. In 2018 Dan Jarvis won 47.1% of first round votes, before romping home with just under three quarters of second round votes, almost 100,000 more than his Conservative opponent. For North Yorkshire, given that the Conservatives control 8 out of the region’s 9 parliamentary seats (all with a majority of more than 3,000 and most with majorities of more than 10,000) we can be quite confident that a North Yorkshire mayor would be of their political persuasion as well.

In West Yorkshire, the situation is slightly more balanced, but nonetheless bodes well for Labour as the Party holds power on all five West Yorkshire councils. However, in local and mayoral elections voters often behave differently than in general elections. Looking at the 2017 General Election in West Yorkshire, Labour won 54.4% of the vote, whilst the Conservatives won 38.6%. Compare this to the local elections in 2018, where Labour won 47.3% of the vote and the Conservatives won 29.4%. This shows that voters are more likely to opt for a third party or independents at the expense of the two main parties. Whilst Labour would be easy favourites to win a mayoral election, this more fluid voting would particularly be important should a strong, independent candidate come forward. One such person often mentioned is Sir Gary Verity.

The other factor that would make a mayoral election less predictable is the composition of the new authority. Whilst the current West Yorkshire Combined Authority is just the five district councils, the Leeds City region also includes heavily Labour Barnsley and York and heavily Conservative Craven, Harrogate and Selby. With Barnsley part of the mayoral South Yorkshire City Region, this would mean a tighter margin between the main parties but still with Labour well in the lead. Analysis of the 2017 general election result shows that in a proposed City Region including the five West Yorkshire council areas, plus Craven, Harrogate, Selby and York, Labour won 50.7% of the vote, whilst the Conservatives won 41.3%, which would make Leeds City Region more competitive.

East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire is perhaps the most interesting sub-region with the smallest margin between the Conservatives and Labour who hold five parliamentary seats each. In 2017 Conservatives won 49.2% of the vote, whilst Labour won 42.6%. Other factors might come into play to make the result less predictable. Would ‘south bankers’ vote for a ‘north banker’ or vice-versa?

Also, Great Grimsby is a traditional Labour bastion that is now one of the Conservatives’ key target seats thanks to its strong support for leaving the European Union.  It is worth remembering the Tees Valley mayoral election from two years ago. Labour was expected to win in a traditional stronghold containing Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Darlington, but Conservative Ben Houchen narrowly edged out Sue Jeffrey by 51.1% to 48.9% in the second round run-off and this was added to by Simon Clarke’s capture of the pro-Brexit seat of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland in the General Election. Similar factors could be at play in East Yorkshire depending on the outcome of Britain’s departure and the part that the main parties play in this.

CONCLUSION

 Whilst a useful background, general or even previous local election results should not be taken as a certain guide to the potential outcome of a mayoral contest.

Three key factors need to be taken into account:

1. Turnout: Averages around 60-65% for a general election but much closer to 30% for a local/mayoral election
2. Voting system: Mayoral elections use the supplementary vote system in which the voter ranks two candidates in order of preference to ensure that the winner receives at least half the votes.
3. Personality: As it is just one person being elected, there is a lot more scope for candidates to attract a personal vote.

On the face of it, if the region is divided into four mayoral authorities there could be two Labour and two Conservative mayors achieving what some might see as a good balance. But after recent events, politics is becoming increasingly unpredictable. Who knows, a strong, new centrist party might sweep the board.

As we move into the middle of August, parliamentary recess is well under way and it’s unsurprising that MPs have embarked on a well-earned break, resting before what promises to be a particularly arduous autumn parliamentary session and conference season.

Whilst some MPs have opted to remain close to home others have decided instead to broaden their horizons and across the past three weeks there has been no shortage of Twitter updates and Instagram posts to keep us entertained.

Liz Truss, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury, sends a signal to her Ministerial colleagues ahead of tough negotiations on spending before the Budget by striking a power pose on a hillside beside the sea in sunny Elba:

Preparing for the Conference season on Elba…#pose #napoleoncomplex #exile

A post shared by Liz Truss (@elizabeth.truss.mp) on Aug 14, 2018 at 4:11am PDT

The Shadow Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary, Andrew Gwynne, has been holidaying, or drinking, across Europe documenting his beer sampling with his hashtag on Twitter and Instagram: #GwynneEuroTrip, including the latest post from the Netherlands:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BmYYJVSFHUR/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_loading_state_control

Steve Baker, the former junior Minister at the Department for Exiting the European Union having resigned over the Chequers’ agreement has got on his bike and is “motorbiking responsibly” in Scotland.

Enjoy motorcycling responsibly

A post shared by Steve Baker MP (@sjbakerhw) on Aug 6, 2018 at 10:27am PDT

Labour MP and Chair of the Business Select Committee, Rachel Reeves, has also decided to stay in the UK and is taking a month’s break from social media.

Off on holiday now with my family and just arrived in the beautiful Lake District. No more social media for August. pic.twitter.com/tCbtux29QX

— Rachel Reeves (@RachelReevesMP) August 9, 2018

Meanwhile, leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg has stuck to his principles by getting out of Europe and seeing the sites that New York has to offer with his family.

A head for heights? The view from the 86th floor of the Empire State Building in New York with Helena, Peter and Mary.

A post shared by Jacob Rees-Mogg (@jacob_rees_mogg) on Jul 30, 2018 at 6:19am PDT

Justine Greening has also opted for a trip across the Atlantic. The former Education Secretary who left government earlier this year after being reshuffled out of the post by the Prime Minister, was pictured hiking in Canada:

Getting out the Westminster bubble really does give you a better perspective… Jx

A post shared by Justine Greening MP (@justine.greening) on Aug 11, 2018 at 1:50am PDT

Labour’s Deputy Leader, Tom Watson, is basking in the Mediterranean sunshine and enjoying a vodka martini or two. This won’t be helping his diet which has seen him slim down by a dramatic 6 stone over the last few months:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BmRCw7lFgHK/?hl=en&taken-by=labour_tom

After recently quitting Labour, the newly independent MP John Woodcock has been seeking thrills close to home on Piel Island, in his constituency of Barrow-in-Furness.

https://twitter.com/JWoodcockMP/status/1027226034473783296

It’s a shame we are still working this summer!

The first sign of trouble for the Tories came just 20 minutes after Theresa May had launched her manifesto in our backyard of West Yorkshire. There was a phone in on Radio Leeds, which attracts an older than average audience, and caller after caller expressed concern that they might be losing their heating allowance. Although the presenter fairly pointed out that it would be means tested and was designed to target wealthier people, nonetheless, the anxiety that this had aroused was obvious, and this just minutes after the announcement.

It proved the stupidity of announcing half a policy with no figures to reassure those who were probably in no danger of having their allowance taken away.

This concern was immediately reflected on the doorstep alongside great unhappiness and anxiety that people would lose their home to pay for social care. Again, the headline was what cut through and not the detail, but that is elementary political communication. Despite the quick U turn, the damage was done and many votes from traditional supporters were lost.

It is true that before this, it was not uncommon for people, even previously habitual Labour voters, to say that they liked Theresa May. She did indeed appear strong and stable, they said. Not once was this heard after the social care debacle. Her reputation was destroyed overnight.

A further damaging pledge was to have a vote in Government time and on a Government Bill on foxhunting. The initial pledge came in response to a question asked by a reporter when May was in West Yorkshire (ironically in the constituency of an MP passionately opposed to fox hunting). For once May gave a direct answer, that there would be a vote. It should have been foreseen that this would be translated on the doorstep as the Tories would bring back foxhunting, which is exactly how it was seen, being mentioned by a surprising number of people and causing countless lost votes.

It is not just on policy that the Conservatives made mistakes. In line with the digital age, elections have become more scientific, making use of the increasingly huge amount of marketing and online data that is available about us all. This is used to target people with letters from the party leaders. Conservative headquarters took this to a new level and were too clever by half. Constituencies were sent lists of specific voters to be targeted and directions that only these should be canvassed on pain of recriminations if this was ignored.

Many Conservative Associations have only a very small number of people who can be called on to go and knock on doors. It is vital to use this resource as efficiently as possible to get round as many voters as possible to identify your supporters so you can urge them to go and vote on polling day. The result of the Conservative campaign approach was that hours of canvassing time was wasted by volunteers standing around trying to find individual houses and walking past all the other houses which went unapproached to only seek out the designated targets. It was all the more galling for volunteers to find when they got there that many of these supposed likely Conservative voters were lifelong Labour or even Lib Dem voters. This inaccurate targeting showed up on polling day when many of those being ‘knocked up’ were indeed going to vote, but not for Theresa May.

It was an incredibly inefficient use of man and women power.

What made it worse was that it was clear early on that there were people switching from Labour to the Conservatives, mostly older and lower income voters. This presented an opportunity for the Conservatives to move into areas where they may not usually gain support and probably had been rarely seen during elections. A canvasser coming to your door can be that last incentive to change your voting habit, particularly if it’s the first time a Conservative has bothered to turn up in your street. If instead of being selective, every house in a street was canvassed, not only would the data on polling day have been much more accurate, but quite a few more voters might have made the switch.

There were other reasons why a 20% plus poll lead was reduced to an inconclusive 2.4% vote lead including an over-reliance on negative campaigning against Jeremy Corbyn, concern over the NHS and less than inspiring performances from the Prime Minister.

That is of course over-laid with the positive reasons that attracted an increase in the number of people voting Labour, but without the self-inflicted harm by the Conservatives, they would not have been enough to prevent May increasing her majority.

“What is going on?” was the question from overseas governments of their diplomatic representatives observing the Conservative Party conference. The country that is seen to epitomise openness, tolerance and being outward looking suddenly seemed to be sending out messages through senior ministers that it was becoming inward looking, unwelcoming and intolerant.

Just as confusing were the messages coming out about the Conservative Party’s approach to business and the role of the state. The Party of small government and pro-business seemed to be having not so much a mid-life crisis but a complete change of positioning.

It is not surprising that foreign observers were left bemused.

There were two factors at play. One was a new leadership excerting its own brand of conservatism, something every party leader does when they first come to office. Although the type of conservatism practised often turns out to be different than that first espoused by a new leader. For example, David Cameron’s emphasis on the environment early in his tenure later became that “green crap”.

Second, is political gamesmanship. There is a huge opportunity for the Conservative Party to move in on the thousands of former Labour voters who feel completely alienated from the Party’s leadership. These political refugees come in two main groups, the liberal minded voter who sees the Tory party as reactionary, divisive and uncaring and those who have traditionally supported Labour as the party of the working man and woman, although on many issues they are well to the right of the party. Many of these have already been lost to UKIP but as that party also seems to be self-imploding and has lost its main raison d’etre, possibly this support is now also footloose.

The Conservatives might win over some of the first group with its promises of a fairer economy, social justice and more state intervention to bring this about. It will, however alienate them with strident language about immigration and pursuing a more closed Brexit.

It is the strident language about immigration on the other hand that will appeal to the second group of Labour voters, especially those that have already crossed the rubicon and made the break from Labour by voting UKIP. If on top of firm action to reduce immigration the Tories are seen to be genuinely helping those struggling to cope, maybe they could finally break away from the decades long perception that they just look after their own as the party of the rich.

Can the Tories ride two horses at once and appeal to both groups? Certainly the Conference was a good try.