Man bites dog

I read a recent report that suggested David Cameron was going to scrap the leaders’ debates in 2015. I was not over keen on these myself, not least because it made our General Election far too presidential for my liking. However, Cameron appears to be running scared of the telegenic charms of Nigel Farrage.

If I was Ed Miliband I would be tempted to offer Farrage a debate; the UKIP manifesto seems as far removed as anything I can immediately think of from where the Labour Party should be that such a debate should an easy victory for the rational debating skills of Ed. A debate would highlight the chasm between UKIP and Labour and give voters the choices they so desperately seek.

UKIP pose a number of problems for Cameron, all self-inflicted. The Tories have never resolved where they want to be on Europe, having fudged the issue since the days of Maggie. Splits have been predicted before, and whilst the party has stayed more or less united, its support has certainly fractured. This may only be a between General Elections problem, but as Labour found out the weakening of the activist base caused by poor showings in local elections eventually catches up with you.

UKIP’s mantra in the recent elections was largely focussed on Europe and immigration, their manifesto resembling a wish-list from the Daily Mail editorial team. The county councils have no power to affect policy in either of these areas, not that this was an electoral obstacle. A quarter of those who voted were so intent on expressing their displeasure that it seemingly mattered not that those whom they chose to support will be powerless to affect change in these areas. However, if Tory HQ is panicked into lurching to the Right then they will see this as job done; even better if Labour feel obliged to compromise too.

Despite my deep disapproval of much that UKIP stand for I cannot help but admire their leader. He surely must be the most popular party leader in the country, and he so towers above everyone in his own party that few could name a second UKIP member. He seemingly conjures positive headlines out of the air at the moment and he will hope that the wave of popularity he is riding carries him and his party for the next twenty-four months.

My view, at the moment, is that UKIP will do even better next year. The EU elections have been fertile territory for UKIP in recent years, and this can only get better in 2014. I cannot see anything but more pain for the Tories for the next thirteen months (the 2014 elections will be held in June). However, when it comes to electing a Government, especially under an electoral system so loaded in favour of the big two parties, I would expect that those sit-at-home and rebelling Tory supporters to return in sufficient numbers to see off any UKIP challenge in 2015. Whether this is enough to stay in Government only time will tell; Cameron will take solace from the fact that Labour’s improved performance last week was some way short of sensational.

In truth, some Labour supporters are also worried about a lack of clear purpose or direction. With two years still to the big test I cannot see how Miliband can do anything but be cautious about announcing policy. However, he could state loud and clear what he does not believe in, and do that by waiving the UKIP manifesto and saying “not this”.

Who wants to bung a millionaire?

David Cameron chose to give millionaires a tax cut of £100,000 while millions pay more.

Prices are going up faster than wages. The economy is flatlining. Nearly one million young people are out of work. Millions are paying the price for David Cameron’s economic failure.

Is this a misuse of a council resource by the Tory candidate for Hawkwell North?

I have been contacted by someone complaining about the election literature of Lesley Butcher, Conservative candidate in the Hawkwell North by-election. They feel that the use of a councillor email address (that belonging to Cllr Jo Mcpherson appears twice on the leaflet shown here) is wrong.

I have had a quick look through Rochford District Council’s Members’ Code Of Conduct
and could not find anything on this.

Whilst searching for anything related I did come across this:

Councillors are provided with an e-mail address: ie “cllr.firstname.surname@colchester.gov.uk”. This is an official address and may only be used by Councillors as part of their duties as an elected member. It may not be used for any party political purpose or appear on any election material or publicity whatsoever. Councillors may use their Council e-mail address on their Ward newsletters as a means of enabling their constituents to contact them. However, the Council e-mail address should not be used in Ward newsletters during an election nomination period or any that contain election material.

Yes, yes, yes, it is an extract from Colchester Borough Council’s Resources Protocol, and therefore nothing to do with Rochford, but it does raise the question as to the appropriateness of using a councillor email address on one’s election material. If Colchester feels that this is an abuse of resources then maybe Rochford should have a rethink (and I apologise if it is covered and I have missed it).

Any resident who feels aggrieved could use the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaint Form.

The by-election follows the resignation of Cllr Pointer. There are four candidates:

Lesley Butcher – Conservative
Keith Gibbs – UKIP
John Jefferies – Labour
Arthur Williams – Independent

In the meantime I must check what Southend-on-Sea Borough Council’s rules are on this.

Mr Seagers: experience does not trump policy

Colin Seagers is clearly a rattled Tory. He is fighting the Rochford South division. This was won by the Tories in 2009 on 51.1% of the votes, some 38.5% ahead of Labour. Yet, since 2009 the electoral tide has turned and I very much expect a close run final result.

Mr Seagers says this in his leaflet:

The Labour candidate falsely claims to be local to Great Wakering, and that he understands how councils are organised and work – but he plainly does not – having very little local authority experience or training even at Parish level.

Now, I am not about to detail Jerry Gibson’s experience, but I can assure you that he brings a wealth of experience and talent to the role. But is this relevant? Colin Seagers is not a County councillor and so this, if he is successful, will be a new experience for him. I presume when he first sought election as a district councillor he did not remind the electorate about his own inexperience at the time.

This really is poor form by Mr Seagers.

I suspect that he does not like democracy and having to face the electorate – his elections in 2007 and 2011 saw him returned unopposed. His last democratic contest, in 2003, saw him victorious with a thin 3.9% majority. He was first elected in 2002, and came third of the three Tory candidates in that all-up election, a mere 25 votes ahead of the fourth placed Labour candidate.

A decade on, and he surely realises that his propensity for making a safe seat look like a marginal is going to be repeated in just under two weeks.

I am curious about the imprint on the leaflet. It states:

Promoted by John Sheaf on behalf of Colin George Seagers both of 192 Main Road Hawkwell Hockley Essex SS5 4ED.

His Rochford District Council web page shows his address as: 2 Wedds Way Great Wakering Southend-on-Sea Essex SS3 0DN

Since he now claims to reside in Hawkwell his claim to be a TRULY LOCAL CANDIDATE (his capitals) is bunk.

Ding dong

Censorship, something we must have, but something that should be used sparingly. Free speech includes the right to offend, tasteless as that may be sometimes.

I have made my views about Baroness Thatcher well known: admired her skills, disliked her politics.

I find the BBC compromise a per pro the number two song in the pop chart unsatisfactory. Ding Dong The Witch is Dead! (there is a video here – sensitive Conservative supporters may wish to avoid, others may be curious as to what the fuss is all about) as songs go is pretty awful. In itself it is uncontentious, but it has acquired meaning beyond the narrow cameo in its original airing in The Wizard Of Oz. The song celebrates the death of an evil witch, and modern context has Thatcher as the witch. It is fairly short at just under one and a half minutes, and so why the BBC thought to allow only a five second snippet defies my attempt at understanding. The song is played almost every Christmas when the film is aired – it may be accompanied by images of Thatcher on Youtube, but on radio it is merely a song from a children’s musical. Besides, Mrs Thatcher was lampooned far more severely by satirical programmes of the time. If it really is offensive then play none of it. The next time the Right complain about censorship of Danish cartoons that mock Islam they will be reminded that free speech is a two-way street.

As to that funeral …..

Whatever one’s views of Margaret Thatcher she was always going to get a ceremonial send off. Whether it needs to be of the scale that will be seen tomorrow is another matter. Yes, she was the longest serving PM of the twentieth century, and yes she is the only woman to have held that role, but if the role of PM includes uniting the country then she was an unmitigated failure.

My personal view is that she was comfortably the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime, possibly the worst ever. She changed the post-war consensus, changed society, and in many ways undermined traditional Conservative values. Her greed is good ethos was at odds with one-nation Conservatism. However, accepting that my views will not chime with everyone there is the wider issue of why she has been selected for special treatment when many other Prime Ministers have had equally good calls for the pomp and ceremony that she is going to get.

One expects the establishment to look after its own, or rather one did. It looked like that was changing, but Cameron is determined to drag the country backwards. He has loaded his Cabinet with the very rich and the very posh, making his Government resemble something from the nineteenth century rather than the twenty-first.

Only Churchill before her was afforded a funeral on the scale of what we are about to see. Yet what of Harold Wilson who won more elections than Thatcher and was not de-fenestrated by his own party, or Clement Attlee who created the post-war consensus that lasted up to 1979 and the arrival of Maggie? The ten million quid being spent on the funeral would trouble me not if all PMs were treated equally; it worries me that they are not.

I had no problem observing a moment’s silence in recognition of her passing, and do happily acknowledge her stature and skills. Whilst I will not download that song, or indeed even agree with its current meaning, neither will I be party to her deification.

Thatcher dead

It is not something I generally advertise, but if forced to name a politician I admire the most I could easily plump for Benjamin Disraeli. It may seem odd for a socialist to go for a Conservative Prime Minister, but I can admire someone’s skills whilst disagreeing with their politics.

I was eleven years old when I first became properly aware of Margaret Thatcher, the Milk Snatcher; it was my milk that she snatched. Already a leftie because of my father’s teaching I could jeer at Heath whilst cheering at Wilson, and was aware that this female Education Minister was doing something profound and personal to me, and to all school children.

I studied politics at school and at home and watched as the Tories did the unthinkable and elected a woman leader. I remember thinking her weak at first, and watched appalled as she grew in stature as the trade unions sabotaged the Labour Government. Thatcher’s rise had as much to do with the far left as it had to do with her personal skills and her struggling first term as PM was rescued in part by internal warring in the Labour party.

I recall my first vote. I missed out in the 1978 local elections as my landlady forgot to register me, and so my debut expression of my suffrage came in a futile attempt to prevent Mrs T getting the keys to Number Ten. I spent the eighties watching Margaret Thatcher and her divisive politics with a mix of loathing, fear and admiration.

I recall the day she announced her resignation as PM, and the celebratory atmosphere at work. Little did we know that there were still nearly seven years of Tory Government to come; her fall suggested to us that we had a chance, at last.

To me she seemed unbeatable. I can imagine that Tony Blair must have had a similar effect on the right. We could only watch, seemingly helpless to prevent her win General Election after General Election. Much like Blair her downfall came at the hands of her own party and not the electorate.

I have tackled both volumes of her biography as well as visited her birthplace. Whilst there will be some on the left who will be rejoicing, I take no pleasure in her death.

Margaret Thatcher entered politics when it was very much a man’s world. Mere handfuls of women sat on the green benches when she was first elected, and to become a first a female leader of a major British political party, and then a female PM is remarkable, so remarkable it has yet to be repeated. Even my party, who have done so much for women in politics and beyond (and whose two female leaders held sway only as stand-ins between death/resignation and election) have yet to elect a female leader, or, for that matter, have a female chancellor.

Thatcher acquired the moniker ‘Iron Lady’, and this painted a picture of something who was resolute, as well as something not liable to compromise. For her supporters her strength of purpose emboldened them, for her detractors her apparent absence of doubt cast her as the wicked witch. However, whatever one thought of her politics at least one knew where one stood. The British like strong leaders.

Maggie was a populist, and this is often forgotten by the left. Her hold on power was by common consent, and whatever I may have thought at the time of her assault on the trade unions and her sale of council homes, as well as the regular sale of publicly owned assets, these resonated with eighties Britain. Many of her policies are unravelling now (the sale of council home and the refusal to allow council to spend the proceeds on house-building is one of the reasons that housing waiting lists are so large) and whether this stains her legacy awaits the historians of tomorrow.

I think her Premiership the worst of the 53 years I have lived, yet she changed the country like no-one before or since. That the change was largely destructive (where are our industries today?) takes nothing away from the radical nature of her Government, and she cast a long shadow over her own party (and to some extent mine).

Farewell Margaret Thatcher. I cannot recall much that I liked about your eleven years in power, but I can admire your skills, resolve, work ethic, and determination to stick to your principles. In many ways you are the reason I am involved in politics today, for I hope to undo some of the damage you did.

Rest in peace.

1983

I was watching a re-run of the 1983 General Election programme on BBC4 the other day, well an hour of it anyway. Watching the last handful of results come in I was reminded of just how close, in terms of votes received, Labour had come to finishing third. In the end they limped to a 27.6% vote share, a mere 2.2% ahead of the SDP-Liberal Alliance.

Margaret Thatcher’s 144 seat majority was won with good fortune smiling down on her. Two years earlier she had the dubious distinction of being the most unpopular Prime Minister ever, and yet managed a landslide that set her up for governing for the remainder of the decade. The Tories were to taste another fourteen years at the helm before finally succumbing to Tony Blair’s New labour project.

In my view there were two major contributing factors to Thatcher’s victory – the Falklands and the rise of the Social Democratic Party. One boosted her popularity, the other split the opposition – an unbeatable combination.

If David Cameron was also watching that programme he may have mused as to whether a similar turnaround in fortunes could happen to him. It is possible, but unlikely, very unlikely. For starters, whilst in 1982 the British were, largely, gung-ho for the conflict in the South Atlantic, years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places has made today’s Britons war-weary. A paper war against the EU is unlikely to fire the imagination of the public in the same way, and it seems to have boosted the standing (and credibility) of UKIP – in other words, his promise of a referendum has, for the moment at least, back-fired.

As for splitting the opposition, Cameron has similar worries closer to home. He knows he must attempt to occupy the centre ground, and yet the rise of UKIP and the shrinking of his party’s vote share is causing a drag to the right. Nervous MPs with small majorities will not be welcoming the idea of a strong UKIP presence come 2015, and they will see the buying off those right-wingers as necessary to keep alive their Parliamentary ambitions.

I have had conversations in recent weeks with socialists who wish for a purer, less watered-down version of socialism to be followed by Labour. Some are suggesting that as Labour is also engaged in the battle for the centre ground of British politics that a more radical alternative must be created. (Some have suggested that The People’s Assembly is the start of this process.) Compromises do not fit with everyone, and yet compromises must be made if any progress is to be made. Otherwise we will see 1983 all over again as Labour write the longest suicide note in history and help an unpopular Tory PM become almost invincible,

Should switchers always resign?

I was selected as Parliamentary candidate for Castle Point in 2007. Shortly afterwards Bob Spink, the then MP for that constituency, jumped before he was pushed and resigned from the Conservative Party, adopting a number of labels over the years, but essentially becoming an independent. I called for a by-election, and Bob used the time-worn excuse of him remaining true to his principles and that the Tories had effectively moved away from him. He remained in place until the 2010 General Election when Rebecca Harris replaced him at Westminster.

Switchers invariably are hailed by their new party, and are called on to resign by those they have left – invariably these calls are ignored. Outrage is expressed by some of those who voted for them, although there will be others cheered by their candidate’s supposed bravery.

No-one can force switchers to resign, and this is simply because of the principle that we elect individuals. That this is contrary to the reality that most voters turn up to vote for their party of choice, largely ignorant of who is representing that party at the time, is conveniently ignored. Supposedly I am elected because of who I am, yet I know that it was my Labour credentials what won it for me.

Should switchers resign? Whilst some like to believe there is one simple answer (invariably ‘yes’) there are a number of complicating factors. Cllr Alex Kaye’s recent return to the Conservative Party has animated many in her ward, not least because her switch in a finely balanced council chamber has repercussions beyond what directly affects her Thorpe residents. She has turned the chamber from NOC (no overall control) to a Conservative majority administration (albeit that I believe they will be ejected from power in a year’s time). The memorandum of understanding signed by all three Thorpe Independents made it a de facto Tory administration anyway. Despite the pretend collegiate nature of scrutiny there is little compromise (q.v. the budget).

So, what needs to be considered, what are these complicating factors? The first is timing; a change when an election is just around the corner is pointless. Cllr Kaye is up for re-election in 2014.

The type of election is important. European elections are conducted using a party list system, and so the personal mandate argument is decidedly weak. Roger Helmer MEP may only have moved from the Conservatives to UKIP (two right-wing parties) but I am baffled as to how he finds this acceptable.

Switching can be forced on someone, particularly if the whip is withdrawn. Under such circumstances resignation is not needed. Eric Joyce, for example, may have many personal failings and may have brought upon himself the ejection from the Labour Party, but his refusal to quit is understandable.

Independents are elected, so we are told, despite their personal politics. That they later choose to make this more obvious by standing under a party banner may irk, but is hardly a shocker. Many find the concept of an independent politician somewhat dishonest, and so Alex’s jump could be construed as an act of honesty (at last). As it happens, she was indistinguishable from the Tories in her voting in the council chamber and her move only confirms publicly what many have known privately – she is a Conservative.

There is the matter of cost. When we cannot even fund a school uniform grant, the essentially navel-gazing exercise of a by-election in Thorpe is an indulgence. Democracy should not be bound by cost, but neither should profligacy be encouraged.

It is also true, and this is the bit that will annoy most non-aligned voters, that political gamesmanship comes into play. A Labour MP walking the floor will be lambasted by his former colleagues, whereas most will be silent should the reverse occur.

To cut to the chase, to switch when you have been elected by the party list system should mean resignation. To switch pretty quickly after having been just elected is also a resignation matter in my eyes. Otherwise it becomes less certain, and the rights and wrongs will largely depend on whether you have gained or loss by it. Ultimately, though, the decision rests with the switcher, and this is as good a place as any.

Thorpe

Vote share in Thorpe ward, 2001 – 2012

News reaches me that Alex Kaye is to become the third Southend-on-Sea councillor to change allegiance in the current Civic Year. It is getting rather confusing trying to keep up with whom is actually in the Independent Group, but I think I am right in stating that they number nine. The Conservatives are now a majority administration.

It will be an interesting test of Cllr Kaye’s personal popularity in her ward next year when she is up for re-election, especially when considering the statistics that show how this formerly rock-solidly safe Tory ward is in thrall to the Independents. Even against the backdrop of a General Election the Tories could not break through, and so I can only assume that Cllr Kaye either suspects that there will be no Independent candidate to oppose her, or that she is more popular than her party in Thorpe. This is an all the more brave move when considering the falling ratings for the Tories, and the prospect of UKIP out-performing them next year.

This now makes nine of the seventeen wards in town having a mixed population as regards to party allegiance, and reflects the changing political picture in the town. The chamber now has 26 Conservatives, 9 Independent Group, 9 Liberal Democrat, 6 Labour, and Dr Velmurugan.

Perhaps the most curious statistic in recent years is that the Tory vote share in 2011 was less than Labour’s in 2001. This leads me to speculate as to whether our rising fortunes will, at some time in the not too distant future, see us overtaking the Tories in Thorpe. Far-fetched? Maybe, but Tory HQ cannot read the recent election results and feel comfortable whilst doing so. To go from 75.5% of the vote to 18.2% in nine years is remarkable indeed.

The Festival of (hot) Air

The Spring 2012 edition of Outlook magazine (produced by Southend-on-Sea Borough Council) includes some words on that year’s (at the time) impending air festival:

Outlook magazine, Spring 2012

ONE of Europe’s largest free air spectaculars is all set for take off again in the Borough. Hundreds of thousands of spectators are expected to pack along two miles of seafront …. It will be the 27th year that Southend-on-Sea has staged the huge two-day event which regular attracts up to half a million people.

The Spring 2011 edition includes the following:

Outlook magazine, Spring 2011

AROUND half a million people are expected at the 26th annual Southend Air Festival …. At one of Europe’s largest free airshows.

I understand why the decision to stop contributing towards the airshow was made (Southend Labour has called for this in previous years – see No more taxpayers’ cash for airshow says Labour) but what amazes me is that in the years that we argued for the money to be spent elsewhere we were told that it contributes up to £1million to the local economy.

As recently as 2011 it was reported (Southend Air Show to continue despite council cuts:

Derek Jarvis, Tory councillor responsible for culture and tourism, is sure the show will go on.

He said: “There are so many people who enjoy it. I do not think stopping it would be an option.

“Obviously it’s not possible to know what might happen in future years, but we have already started planning for next year’s event. I cannot see any changes in the foreseeable future.”

Anita Thornberry, the council’s head of enterprise, said: “Although the council has made a loss on the event in recent years, it benefits traders by bringing hundreds of thousands of people into Southend.

“The financial loss to the authority is outweighed by the positive effect the airshow has on the town’s tourist economy.”

Cllr Tony Cox has written on the airshow over the years:

2011 … was fortunate enough to visit both days of the Southend Airshow and what a fantastic event it was … This was the 26th Airshow and hopefully still going strong.

2013 … many businesses have privately over the years said to me that they do not need the Airshow as they will busy anyway due to it being a bank holiday weekend.

Why no mention of this when Labour was calling for this cut in previous years?

Cllr James Courtenay also claimed: … this year’s Airshow, a big thing not only for our residents but our local economy

One could say the local Tories are inconsistent, one could say that they have misled the town’s residents.

The ruling administration will not enjoy reading the comments attached to the Save Southend Airshow petition.