Tuesday, October 02, 2007
The rumbling guts of Labour election decision making
So what ‘gut feelings’ are likely to influence Labours (or Browns) decision on an election date? Well two possibilities are how they cope with a lack of experience in actually fighting elections on the grounds and the memory of the clothes-peg vote in 2005
Both gut reactions suggest that for key Labour decision makers Labour a quick winter election is desirable as such.
One of the key differences between the Royal Navy and the French Navy in 18th Century wars was that British officers worked their way up from junior ranks, learning by experience. French officers were more likely to be trained ashore and appointed from above. The difference showed in choices for battle strategy and detailed combat performance.
Liberal Democrats have by necessity had to learn how to fight and win elections from the ground up and this experience still lives on at National level. . However both Labour and Conservative national election decision makers are much more likely to have started at the grand planning level where elections are a matter of indoor rallies, billboards, paid-for delivery of literature and TV opportunities. In their guts Labour election planners may really not know what it means to have a winter election where you have to call on party worker to get soaked on the doorsteps, and they really may not give a damn. If they do think about it, perhaps they recon it will hit the LibDems hardest which is not a disadvantage in their eyes.
And there may be a more specific anti-LibDem element in their current calculations. In the 2005 election I happened to link onto an online discussion where agonised Labour supporters debated what to do. One faction famously said put a clothes-peg on your nose and Vote Labour. Then after the election Brown will succeed Blair and all will be well. Others argued that the situation with the Iraq war and various civil liberty issues was too serious and that Labour could not be supported at that election. A minority pointed out that the LibDem position was actually something deserving positive support.
My reading of the gut-rumbles after the 2005 poll is that anti-Blair Labour activists think there was indeed a considerable clothes-peg vote and that the LibDems did indeed succeed in picking up votes in unexpected places, snatching ‘natural Labour seats’ and ‘betraying’ others into Tory hands. Based on that gut calculation Labour now expects to turn out the clothes-peg vote which feels vindicated and regain the ‘waverers’ who ‘defected’ last time.
But they have to do this before people get a proper look at Brown and his long-term plans, while the illusions of the clothes-peggers are still unshattered.
There are broadly two election outcomes that would be a disaster for Brown. The terminal one would be to lose his majority even if the Tories did not get one in return. The second would be to see a substantial increase in the LibDem representation and thus an increase in effective and relevant Parliamentary opposition. A true nightmare would be the LibDems as Official Opposition – principled and relevant and with a breadth and depth of expertise the Tories can only dream of right now. That would really spell long term trouble for Brown and Labour.
Reading the current farts from labour guts I suspect Brown sees an election geared to maximising damage to the LibDems. He doesn’t really care what happens to the Tories provided they stay the official opposition and don’t increase their Parliamentary holding more than a dozen or so. A Tory opposition on the present lines he can handle easily.
For us it means ‘come three corners of the world in arms…’ and yes I now expect a Winter Poll.
Both gut reactions suggest that for key Labour decision makers Labour a quick winter election is desirable as such.
One of the key differences between the Royal Navy and the French Navy in 18th Century wars was that British officers worked their way up from junior ranks, learning by experience. French officers were more likely to be trained ashore and appointed from above. The difference showed in choices for battle strategy and detailed combat performance.
Liberal Democrats have by necessity had to learn how to fight and win elections from the ground up and this experience still lives on at National level. . However both Labour and Conservative national election decision makers are much more likely to have started at the grand planning level where elections are a matter of indoor rallies, billboards, paid-for delivery of literature and TV opportunities. In their guts Labour election planners may really not know what it means to have a winter election where you have to call on party worker to get soaked on the doorsteps, and they really may not give a damn. If they do think about it, perhaps they recon it will hit the LibDems hardest which is not a disadvantage in their eyes.
And there may be a more specific anti-LibDem element in their current calculations. In the 2005 election I happened to link onto an online discussion where agonised Labour supporters debated what to do. One faction famously said put a clothes-peg on your nose and Vote Labour. Then after the election Brown will succeed Blair and all will be well. Others argued that the situation with the Iraq war and various civil liberty issues was too serious and that Labour could not be supported at that election. A minority pointed out that the LibDem position was actually something deserving positive support.
My reading of the gut-rumbles after the 2005 poll is that anti-Blair Labour activists think there was indeed a considerable clothes-peg vote and that the LibDems did indeed succeed in picking up votes in unexpected places, snatching ‘natural Labour seats’ and ‘betraying’ others into Tory hands. Based on that gut calculation Labour now expects to turn out the clothes-peg vote which feels vindicated and regain the ‘waverers’ who ‘defected’ last time.
But they have to do this before people get a proper look at Brown and his long-term plans, while the illusions of the clothes-peggers are still unshattered.
There are broadly two election outcomes that would be a disaster for Brown. The terminal one would be to lose his majority even if the Tories did not get one in return. The second would be to see a substantial increase in the LibDem representation and thus an increase in effective and relevant Parliamentary opposition. A true nightmare would be the LibDems as Official Opposition – principled and relevant and with a breadth and depth of expertise the Tories can only dream of right now. That would really spell long term trouble for Brown and Labour.
Reading the current farts from labour guts I suspect Brown sees an election geared to maximising damage to the LibDems. He doesn’t really care what happens to the Tories provided they stay the official opposition and don’t increase their Parliamentary holding more than a dozen or so. A Tory opposition on the present lines he can handle easily.
For us it means ‘come three corners of the world in arms…’ and yes I now expect a Winter Poll.
Comments:
The problem for Brown is that he underestimates the sheer masochism of us Lib Dems which means that we are unlikely to be deterred.
We have an ex-Cabinet minister in our sights here and I for one am not going to duck the challenge!
Post a Comment
We have an ex-Cabinet minister in our sights here and I for one am not going to duck the challenge!
# posted by 
: 3:25 pm, October 02, 2007
: 3:25 pm, October 02, 2007The rumbling guts of Labour election decision making
So what ‘gut feelings’ are likely to influence Labours (or Browns) decision on an election date?
Well two possibilities are how they digest the lack of experience in actually fighting elections on the grounds and the memory of the clothes-peg vote in 2005
Both gut reactions suggest that for key Labour decision makers Labour a quick winter election is desirable as such.
One of the key differences between the Royal Navy and the French Navy in 18th Century wars was that British officers worked their way up from junior ranks, learning by experience. French officers were more likely to be trained ashore and appointed from above on criteria other than seamanship. The difference showed in choices for battle strategy and detailed combat performance.
Liberal Democrats have by necessity had to learn how to fight and win elections from the ground up and this experience still lives on at National level. However both Labour and Conservative national election decision makers are much more likely to have started at the grand planning level where elections are a matter of indoor rallies, billboards, policy stunts, paid-for delivery of literature and TV opportunities. In their guts Labour election planners may really not know what it means to have a winter election where you have to call on party worker to get soaked on the doorsteps, and they really may not give a damn. If they do think about it, perhaps they recon it will hit the LibDems hardest which is not a disadvantage in their eyes.
And there may be a more specific anti-LibDem element in their current calculations. In the 2005 election I happened to link onto an online discussion where agonised Labour supporters debated what to do. One faction famously said put a clothes-peg on your nose and Vote Labour. Then after the election Brown will succeed Blair and all will be well. Others argued that the situation with the Iraq war and various civil liberty issues was too serious and that Labour could not be supported at that election. A minority pointed out that the LibDem position was actually something deserving positive support.
My reading of the gut-rumbles after the 2005 poll is that anti-Blair Labour activists think there was indeed a considerable clothes-peg vote and that the LibDems did indeed succeed in picking up votes in unexpected places, snatching ‘natural Labour seats’ and ‘betraying’ others into Tory hands. Based on that gut calculation Labour now expects to turn out the clothes-peg vote, which feels vindicated, and regain the ‘waverers’ who ‘defected’ last time.
But they have to do this before people get a proper look at Brown and his long-term plans, while the illusions of the clothes-peggers are still unshattered.
There are broadly two election outcomes that would be a disaster for Brown. The terminal one would be to lose his majority even if the Tories did not get one in return. The second would be to see a substantial increase in the LibDem representation and thus an increase in effective and relevant Parliamentary opposition. A true nightmare would be the LibDems as Official Opposition – principled and relevant and with a breadth and depth of expertise the Tories can only dream of right now. That would really spell long term trouble for Brown and Labour.
Reading the current farts from labour guts I suspect Brown sees an election geared to maximising damage to the LibDems. He doesn’t really care what happens to the Tories provided they stay the official opposition and don’t increase their Parliamentary holding more than a dozen or so. A Tory opposition on the present lines he can handle easily.
For us it means ‘come three corners of the world in arms…’ and yes I now expect a Winter Poll.
Well two possibilities are how they digest the lack of experience in actually fighting elections on the grounds and the memory of the clothes-peg vote in 2005
Both gut reactions suggest that for key Labour decision makers Labour a quick winter election is desirable as such.
One of the key differences between the Royal Navy and the French Navy in 18th Century wars was that British officers worked their way up from junior ranks, learning by experience. French officers were more likely to be trained ashore and appointed from above on criteria other than seamanship. The difference showed in choices for battle strategy and detailed combat performance.
Liberal Democrats have by necessity had to learn how to fight and win elections from the ground up and this experience still lives on at National level. However both Labour and Conservative national election decision makers are much more likely to have started at the grand planning level where elections are a matter of indoor rallies, billboards, policy stunts, paid-for delivery of literature and TV opportunities. In their guts Labour election planners may really not know what it means to have a winter election where you have to call on party worker to get soaked on the doorsteps, and they really may not give a damn. If they do think about it, perhaps they recon it will hit the LibDems hardest which is not a disadvantage in their eyes.
And there may be a more specific anti-LibDem element in their current calculations. In the 2005 election I happened to link onto an online discussion where agonised Labour supporters debated what to do. One faction famously said put a clothes-peg on your nose and Vote Labour. Then after the election Brown will succeed Blair and all will be well. Others argued that the situation with the Iraq war and various civil liberty issues was too serious and that Labour could not be supported at that election. A minority pointed out that the LibDem position was actually something deserving positive support.
My reading of the gut-rumbles after the 2005 poll is that anti-Blair Labour activists think there was indeed a considerable clothes-peg vote and that the LibDems did indeed succeed in picking up votes in unexpected places, snatching ‘natural Labour seats’ and ‘betraying’ others into Tory hands. Based on that gut calculation Labour now expects to turn out the clothes-peg vote, which feels vindicated, and regain the ‘waverers’ who ‘defected’ last time.
But they have to do this before people get a proper look at Brown and his long-term plans, while the illusions of the clothes-peggers are still unshattered.
There are broadly two election outcomes that would be a disaster for Brown. The terminal one would be to lose his majority even if the Tories did not get one in return. The second would be to see a substantial increase in the LibDem representation and thus an increase in effective and relevant Parliamentary opposition. A true nightmare would be the LibDems as Official Opposition – principled and relevant and with a breadth and depth of expertise the Tories can only dream of right now. That would really spell long term trouble for Brown and Labour.
Reading the current farts from labour guts I suspect Brown sees an election geared to maximising damage to the LibDems. He doesn’t really care what happens to the Tories provided they stay the official opposition and don’t increase their Parliamentary holding more than a dozen or so. A Tory opposition on the present lines he can handle easily.
For us it means ‘come three corners of the world in arms…’ and yes I now expect a Winter Poll.
Comments:
Another key difference was that the British did not guillotine many of their best Navy officers in a fit of revolutionary zeal.
The French then learned it's not easy to quickly replace a generation of talent and accrued knowledge.
Post a Comment
The French then learned it's not easy to quickly replace a generation of talent and accrued knowledge.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Doube Double Toil and Trouble - an election chaos nightmare
I have been trying to make sense of the voter registration situation, and other worries, and come up with some troubling conclusions. If I have got it wrong, I think I am not alone in these conclusions so some public information needs to come out sharpish.
Voter registration. Forget the rolling registration. A LOT of people will be disenfranchised if we hold an election now. As I understand it, you needed to be on the register by September 1st to qualify for an election up to November 30th. So, for example, all those students going up to campus for the first time will therefore not be able to register at college for an autumn election… Cambridge, two Oxford seats, Chelmsford, lots of interesting seats affected. Any registrations now would be set aside to be processed after polling day and added to the register as from January 1st 2008
Is this so? Is the figure anything like the ‘million disenfranchised nationally’ that has started to pop up in backstairs conversations?
Those who were on the register anywhere before September 1st will be OK, but there could be confusion in store for many people who have filled in the registration forms for the annual registration check, and who are at a different address to their previous registration. Again as I understand it, forms received after 1 September are not counted as a ‘rolling registration’ so those people will not be on the register at the new address they expect to vote from, though they may still be able to vote as from their old address as that registration may still be valid. They would need to check the registers go to their old polling station or ask for a ballot paper from their old address to go to their new one. More work for Election Officer staff. Again is this so? Clear advice is urgently needed.
Postal Vote verification. New legislation requires the signatures on returned ballot envelopes to be checked. Or at least it does in England and in Wales (And in Northern Ireland?). In Scotland however legislation is required under devolved powers. I hear that this hasn’t happened so any Autumn election in Scotland will be under the old rules for postal votes. Is this so?
There are new machines coming into use that will read signatures on ballot envelopes automatically and compare to that given on the postal vote application form. Only a very few Returning Officers have even got hold of these machines yet. Even if rushed into service, there is no time for proper training and debugging of the system under realistic operational conditions. The old IT lecturer in me is drooling about an emerging case study in bad technology deployment, the practical politician and responsible citizen cringes at the possible chaos to come.
Northern Ireland. The election for the Westminster seats will of course be under the national FPTP system. This maximises the chances for disruptive campaigns aimed at destroying the current power sharing agreement undertaken by parties competing in Proportional Elections.. How robust is the governing agreement?
What a pity the system was not changed at least for the Westminster seats from Northern Ireland..
Postal Service
Two postal strikes are planned for the middle of the possible election period which could seriously muck up postal voting and also the FREEPOST deliveries of election material.
All in all there are excellent technical reasons for NOT having a General Election for the next couple of months.
Pity that the main opposition parties have herded themselves into an ‘election now!’ stampede and cannot offer calm advice in the national interest.
(And yes I do think we LibDems have made a serious mistake on this one, giving Gordon a free hand to exploit whatever advantages he can grab).
Voter registration. Forget the rolling registration. A LOT of people will be disenfranchised if we hold an election now. As I understand it, you needed to be on the register by September 1st to qualify for an election up to November 30th. So, for example, all those students going up to campus for the first time will therefore not be able to register at college for an autumn election… Cambridge, two Oxford seats, Chelmsford, lots of interesting seats affected. Any registrations now would be set aside to be processed after polling day and added to the register as from January 1st 2008
Is this so? Is the figure anything like the ‘million disenfranchised nationally’ that has started to pop up in backstairs conversations?
Those who were on the register anywhere before September 1st will be OK, but there could be confusion in store for many people who have filled in the registration forms for the annual registration check, and who are at a different address to their previous registration. Again as I understand it, forms received after 1 September are not counted as a ‘rolling registration’ so those people will not be on the register at the new address they expect to vote from, though they may still be able to vote as from their old address as that registration may still be valid. They would need to check the registers go to their old polling station or ask for a ballot paper from their old address to go to their new one. More work for Election Officer staff. Again is this so? Clear advice is urgently needed.
Postal Vote verification. New legislation requires the signatures on returned ballot envelopes to be checked. Or at least it does in England and in Wales (And in Northern Ireland?). In Scotland however legislation is required under devolved powers. I hear that this hasn’t happened so any Autumn election in Scotland will be under the old rules for postal votes. Is this so?
There are new machines coming into use that will read signatures on ballot envelopes automatically and compare to that given on the postal vote application form. Only a very few Returning Officers have even got hold of these machines yet. Even if rushed into service, there is no time for proper training and debugging of the system under realistic operational conditions. The old IT lecturer in me is drooling about an emerging case study in bad technology deployment, the practical politician and responsible citizen cringes at the possible chaos to come.
Northern Ireland. The election for the Westminster seats will of course be under the national FPTP system. This maximises the chances for disruptive campaigns aimed at destroying the current power sharing agreement undertaken by parties competing in Proportional Elections.. How robust is the governing agreement?
What a pity the system was not changed at least for the Westminster seats from Northern Ireland..
Postal Service
Two postal strikes are planned for the middle of the possible election period which could seriously muck up postal voting and also the FREEPOST deliveries of election material.
All in all there are excellent technical reasons for NOT having a General Election for the next couple of months.
Pity that the main opposition parties have herded themselves into an ‘election now!’ stampede and cannot offer calm advice in the national interest.
(And yes I do think we LibDems have made a serious mistake on this one, giving Gordon a free hand to exploit whatever advantages he can grab).
Labels: Brown, Elections, postal votes, students
Comments:
Most of what you say is true except:
"As I understand it, you needed to be on the register by September 1st to qualify for an election up to November 30th"
Special rules come in beyond the normal rolling registration rules.
"As I understand it, you needed to be on the register by September 1st to qualify for an election up to November 30th"
Special rules come in beyond the normal rolling registration rules.
Yes, but only after an election is called and up to twelve? days before polling day - a window in the minimum campaign period of just nine days. Though if they think disenfrachising students is going to let them keep hold of Andrew SMith's seat they've got another think coming!
Post a Comment
Friday, June 29, 2007
A Presidency is born???
As we await the ‘Word From Gordon On High’ on ‘constitutional initiatives’ a thought on the possible road to a Presidency.
The constitutional convention in the UK is that Ministers of the Crown (however junior) have to be Members of Parliament, either of the Commons or the Lords. In the past when outsiders have been parachuted into government they were given peerages to regularise their positions.
This means that ministers have a certain connection to Party, and a political position separate from their ministerial office. They are also questionable by their own house.
In presidential systems (in the USA and in the French Hybrid) the Presidents are at liberty to appoint people to any post of any persuasion they chose – within the constraints of the power balance. In the USA it is almost conventional for a President of one party to appoint at least one cabinet minister affiliated to the other party.
In the flood of appointments to Team Gordon a number of non-parliamentarians have been tagged with posts entitled ‘Minister’ and so far nothing mentioned about entering the Lords or fighting by-elections. There has however been talk of alternative fora for accountability.
In many ways Blair ran a Presidency rather than a Premiership, and was only really constrained by the internal dynamics of Browns treasury kingdom. Brown will of course make sure that nothing so effective will challenge him in the Labour ministerial tribe. What are the constraints on him emphasising the Presidential trend in UK politics?
In all this ‘talent show’ recruitment are we seeing the final demise of Parliament in day to day politics ( rather on the lines of the London assembly in relation to the Mayor) or will there be a development of effective scrutiny over non-parliamentary ministers?
I think we need to keep very careful watch over this development.
The constitutional convention in the UK is that Ministers of the Crown (however junior) have to be Members of Parliament, either of the Commons or the Lords. In the past when outsiders have been parachuted into government they were given peerages to regularise their positions.
This means that ministers have a certain connection to Party, and a political position separate from their ministerial office. They are also questionable by their own house.
In presidential systems (in the USA and in the French Hybrid) the Presidents are at liberty to appoint people to any post of any persuasion they chose – within the constraints of the power balance. In the USA it is almost conventional for a President of one party to appoint at least one cabinet minister affiliated to the other party.
In the flood of appointments to Team Gordon a number of non-parliamentarians have been tagged with posts entitled ‘Minister’ and so far nothing mentioned about entering the Lords or fighting by-elections. There has however been talk of alternative fora for accountability.
In many ways Blair ran a Presidency rather than a Premiership, and was only really constrained by the internal dynamics of Browns treasury kingdom. Brown will of course make sure that nothing so effective will challenge him in the Labour ministerial tribe. What are the constraints on him emphasising the Presidential trend in UK politics?
In all this ‘talent show’ recruitment are we seeing the final demise of Parliament in day to day politics ( rather on the lines of the London assembly in relation to the Mayor) or will there be a development of effective scrutiny over non-parliamentary ministers?
I think we need to keep very careful watch over this development.
Labels: Brown, constitution, presidency
Comments:
Post a Comment
Thursday, June 28, 2007
First sight of Tory response on Brown
Rescued from some doormats as a side-effect of Good Morning delivery in a council by-election today... a Tory 'Good Morning' (they are learning, please note) enclosing a second Tory offering. A very glossy and expensive looking card saying
Attacking Labour for being soft on crime and bungling prisons policy. This looks like a nationally produced effort so watch out for it at other by-elections.
By the way, this by-election is also plagued by the 'England First Party' campaigning against the LibDem council's policy of providing language interpreters where required and moaning about the number of languages spoken in local schools.
"Brown in, Prisoners Out"
Attacking Labour for being soft on crime and bungling prisons policy. This looks like a nationally produced effort so watch out for it at other by-elections.
By the way, this by-election is also plagued by the 'England First Party' campaigning against the LibDem council's policy of providing language interpreters where required and moaning about the number of languages spoken in local schools.
Comments:
Post a Comment
