Tribalism is for football fans - not politicians

The catalyst for this post was a Facebook comment by my friend Chris Brooke of Virtual Stoa fame, but the issue has been bugging me for a while, so it's time to get to the bottom of whether political "tribalism" has any place in progressive politics.

Chris's comment referred to a recent post on the soft-left Shifting Grounds blog by a variety of authors including Andy Harrop (director of the Fabian Society), Neal Lawson (director of Compass), Olaf Cramme (director of Policy Network), Linda Jack (chair of Liberal Left) and David Clark (the Shifting Grounds blog editor) as "rubbish". The post was called "Paving the way for an alternative coalition" - some excerpts from it are posted below:

We are now closer to the date of the next election than the last and debate about the shape and composition of the next government is well under way. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have just set out their joint priorities for what remains of the current coalition’s term of office. But progressive politics will be the loser if a renewal of that arrangement comes to be seen as the natural outcome in the event of another hung parliament. An alternative coalition joining Labour and the Liberal Democrats also needs to be on the table for a proper debate about Britain’s future to take place. The British people deserve no less.

We know from experience that creating that option will require courage, care and commitment. The failure of both our parties to prepare the ground before the last election became painfully apparent during the coalition negotiations that took place three years ago. The realities of parliamentary arithmetic made a Lib-Lab coalition difficult in any event, but the climate of mutual suspicion showed how estranged the two parties had become since tentative efforts at co-operation were abandoned in the first term of the Blair government. It would be a tragedy for Britain if the centre-left failed to enter the next election better prepared for the aftermath and the negotiations that may follow.

Looking across the main areas of policy, it is easier to find points of agreement than disagreement [between Labour and the Lib Dems]. But laying the ground for an alternative coalition requires more than policy agreement. It calls for a change of attitudes and working methods...

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats will continue to compete robustly and fight the next election aiming to win on their own terms. That’s as it should be. But both should also prepare for the possibility that the British people once again decline to give a majority to any single party. In that eventuality there will be a number of options to consider and nothing we propose can prejudge what either party may decide. But if we want a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition to be one of those options, the ground will have to be prepared in advance and that process should start soon. The decision about the next government of Britain is too important to be taken by default.

Was this post "rubbish?" I don't believe so. Some background:  I know Chris is one of those people who left Compass because they ceased to be a purely Labour-based pressure group and began to open up their membership to other parties such as Greens and Liberal Democrats (he was not the only one to leave when that happened: the entire Compass youth wing resigned, for example). I think this is a real shame, frankly, as it seems to me that it's ridiculous to claim that the Labour Party has a monopoly on good progressive ideas in this country. Moreoever, given that it's far from certain that Labour will win a majority at the next election, it seems sensible to plan for the possible outcome of Labour as the largest single party but short of a majority. But for Chris (and many others), apparently not. I find this stance hard to understand.

I should be clear, by the way, that I don't agree with all of the Shifting Grounds article. It's not really true that "looking across the main areas of policy, it is easier to find points of agreement than disagreement between Labour and the Lib Dems." After the last 3 years in which the Lib Dems have shamelessly propped up a reactionary Tory govt, it should be fairly clear that the Lib Dem leadership is a long way right of centre - particularly on the economy - and the backbench MPs remarkably willing to comply with that right-of-centre agenda (having campaigned pretending to be a left-of-centre party in most respects). It's not for nothing that I call the Lib Dems the "Fib Dems" loudly and often on this blog. I detest what they've done to this country and I think it would probably be a good thing, all things considered if the Lib Dem party collapsed after the next election after losing all its MPs. They are dissemblers, traitors and collaborationists. And to the extent that there is agreeement between Labour and the Lib Dems on economic policy issues in particular, that is a failing in the Labour Party - it reflects the (diminishing but still far too high) influence of centre-right Blairism, which Ed Miliband has weakened but not completely dispelled.

However, I think we need to think realistically about what's likely to happen at the next election under current boundaries. I doubt there will be a complete wipeout - it's more likely that there will be at least 20 Lib Dem MPs still around after the next election, largely because some of their candidates will probably succeed in fighting a guerilla war against their own party's policies and will pull in anti-Tory votes from the left, particularly in areas where Labour doesn't have a good ground operation. (There is precedent for this in the Labour Party by the way - Bob Marshall-Andrews managed to win in Medway in 2005, when most other Labour MPs in the south-east lost, by running a guerilla campaign against Tony Blair). Given that maybe 20 Lib Dem MPs will manage to hang on, the idea that Labour should just ignore this possibility and act as if the Lib Dems are going to be wiped out after the next election - however much they might want that to be the case - seems stupid to me.

How likely is it that the Lib Dems are likely to be holding the balance of power at the next election? I don't think it's the most likely option - I think that's a majority Labour govt, albeit with a small majority. But I'd say Labour as the largest party but short of a majority is the second most likely option. And in that case, it would be very useful if some bridges were built with the Lib Dems - or at least the more progressive MPs among them - before the election. Otherwise, there is a huge risk that Labour could be kept out of office by another Tory-Lib Dem coalition - even if Labour were the largest single party.

I'd actually go even further than that (again disagreeing with the Shifting Grounds article) and say that where there is a progressive Lib Dem MP with a good record of voting against the current govt, Labour should consider not putting up a candidate in that constituency and advising Labour voters to vote for the Lib Dem instead. And similarly,  in Brighton Pavilion where Caroline Lucas is pursuing a policy platform that's vastly better than pretty much anything the Labour Party has to offer, the Labour party should advise its voters to vote Green. Now, this kind of open-mindedness and willingness to focus on the policies of the sitting MP, rather than the particular colour of his or her rosette, will of course be anathema to many Labour activists but unfortunately, that simply reflects their own bone-headedness and tribalism. I would much prefer it if we had a PR system of elections and everyone could vote their first choice. I think that will happen - eventually - but it's still a long way off at the moment and so we have to do the best to keep right-wingers out of Parliament however we can with the system we have. (This doesn't, of course, do anything about some of the extreme right-wingers in the Labour party - for example I don't know how any progressive could vote for Liam Byrne - but that's probably best handled by Labour constituency associations voting to deselect far-right Blairite candidates - something that, sadly, never seems to happen).

Basically I think the kind of simplistic tribal Labour politics that says "I'll vote for Mickey Mouse (or indeed, Tony Blair) as long as he's wearing a red rosette but give me a left-wing candidate wearing another rosette and I'll try to annihilate them" is boneheaded and infantile. (By the way, Chris is on record as saying he doesn't subscribe to this naive tribalist view either: but in that case I'm a bit puzzled as to why he thinks the Shifting Grounds article is so bad). Of course, it's possible to go too far the other way, and give too much of the benefit of the doubt to nominally 'progressive' parties that are anything but. For example, many people - including myself to an extent - got taken in my Nick Clegg's fresh-faced "New Politics" shtick in the last election campaign and believed there was no possible way he could go into a coalition with the Tories. That was a stupid mistake and I hold my hands up about that. But equally, I don't believe that every single Lib Dem is a dyed-in-the-wool right-wing neoliberal anti-progressive. And to categorically rule out any collaboration with the Lib Dems in advance of the election (which is what Chris seems to be indicating is the best thing to do), that's what I'd have to believe. I can certainly believe that more than half of Lib Dem MPs are like that, but that still leaves many who aren't. Possibly enough to make the difference between a Labour minority govt which achieves nothing at all in the next parliamentary term, and a Lab/Lib majority govt which achieves a hell of a lot.

So let's have a bit less of the cardboard cut-out terrace chant tribalism that characterises so much party political discourse, and a bit more willingness to judge politicians by their ideas and not the colour of their rosette.

UPDATE: there is a good debate on the Labour Uncut blog - the best thing I've ever seen on Labour Uncut, actually - between the aforementioned David Clark and a Labour councillor called Pete Bowyer in which Mr Bowyer demonstrates many of the tendencies I have criticised above. Well worth reading.

The "Glib Dems" - from spineless collaborators to willing collaborators?

Despite being on holiday this past week, the fact that we stayed in the UK meant that I was exposed to more of the Liberal Democrat conference than I'd have liked to. As far as I could tell (which is mainly from Channel 4 news bulletins), the mood of the conference was rather different in 2011 than 2010. Last year there were significant rebellions against coalition policy - particularly on free schools. This year, a threatened rebellion against the NHS privatisation bill didn't get off the ground (the motion to hold a debate on the bill got more than 50% of delegate votes but didn't get the two-thirds it needed to pass).

There appears to have been a shift in how most of the Lib Dems are perceiving and positioning themselves. Last year, they were a sell-out and a prop for the Tories and they knew it. The squirming embarrassment of Vince Cable over tuition fees was the foremost example of this. The party looked to be heading for some kind of collective brain seizure.

But now... it's rather different. Sure, Huhne and Cable's speeches hit out tokenistically at the extreme right of the Tory party but overall there was suprisingly little criticism of the Tories. Instead, all the most stinging criticism was reserved for Labour. Clegg was particularly scathing - something that Ed Miliband will welcome, I think. After all, the experience of the AV referendum shows that these days the public normally does the exact opposite of what Nick Clegg says.

Last year I had pigeonholed the Lib Dems as spineless collaborators, unable to speak up for their progressive instincts because they had signed a Faustian pact with those bastard Tories. But now... they're still collaborators, but for the most part, WILLING collaborators. They actually BELIEVE in the shit policies they are foisting on the public.

Even Vince Cable - who give a similar cardboard cut-out "radical" speech to last year - is pursuing an extreme right deregulatory agenda at BIS. And Vince is certainly the extreme left wing edge of Lib Dems in government. The others are much worse.

Are the activists swallowing this shit? I think, by and large, they are. There is disquiet (as the NHS vote showed) but not enough to upset the applecart (again, as the NHS vote showed). The Social Liberal Forum - which is the social democratic fringe of the Lib Dems - doesn't have the numbers or the parliamentary leadership to challenge Clegg, and seems reluctant to split off from the rest of the party. There is probably also a sample selection effect going on here; many of the Lib Dems who were pissed off with the decision to go in with the Tories left in May 2010 or soon after, to join Labour or the Greens. Likewise, the Lib Dems claimed that thousands of new members signed up in the wake of the coalition deal... these will have been right-wingers, almost certainly. (I don't know what's happened to Lib Dem membership recently... some people said the conference hall looked a bit sparsely attended but that could have been because they'd hired a bigger venue than previous years? I don't know).

So basically, this is becoming (or has become) a right-wing party indistinguishable from the Tory mainstream except for a few issues: Europe, civil liberties, and maybe crime and national security.

Which means, more or less, that the advent of the "ConDems" has moved us from a political system with one right-wing party and two centre-left wing parties to a system with one left-wing party(at least in theory) and two right-wing parties. (Plus the Greens, UKIP and the Nationalists, of course). Under first past the post, it seems to me that Labour is the likely beneficiary of this shift. The Lib Dems will find it very hard next time round to take any votes off Labour from the left of the spectrum, as Charles Kennedy did with some success in 2005. Nor will they easily be able to rely on the more nebulous "new politics" schtick which produced the Cleggmania bubble of 2015. Instead, they will be out there at stage right, fighting to make the Tories look as reactionary as possible while copying their economic arguments and anti-Labour rhetoric...

So, from "Fib Dems" to "Glib Dems" it is, then. The Lib Dems have made their choice... it's a right-of-centre party from now on. They have gambled on shifting the political centre of gravity so far to the right that there will be room for two right-wing parties to co-exist successfully in future elections. Can this strategy work? The polls at the moment suggest there's no way in hell (and that's without boundary changes, of which more another time). But there is still a long way to go before 2015, and my new prediction is that the coalition will last until then... because many of the people in the Lib Dems who could take it down have already left.

On holiday - like the Lib Dems' collective brain

Having a nice time up in west Norfolk - a great area of the country for foodies and beach walkers, for sure. This keeps me away from mischievous activities like watching the Fib Dem conference - although not from Twitter, where I have been enjoying regular dialogue and argument with left and right.

The most amusing aspect of the current Fib Dem exercise in mass self-delusion is the feeling that somehow they have turned the corner - despite the fact that their YouGov opinion poll rating is around 9%, unchanged from where it was in January - and Nick Clegg is still enjoying staggeringly low ratings with the electorate. And so the party faithful (those that haven't walked away in disgust) console themselves in a fantasy.

The set piece speeches are a cross between George Orwell and Monty Python: Tim Farron telling the members to "stop complaining" - i.e. be happy with your lot, acting as as appendage to the Tory Party. Simon Hughes - who gave a good speech at the Compass conference back in June, to be fair - saying that the Lib Dems were reining in "extremist" Tories. Strange then, Simon, that key Tory policies like savage spending cuts - and even key Tory policies that weren't in their manifesto, like NHS privatisation - are being nodded through. And the ministers - Clegg, Teather, Alexander - are even worse than that. We will no doubt see the standard left-wing football rattle speech from Vincent Cable later in the week - at the same time that he is attempting to dismantle the employment regulation structure of Britain. And all along, these bastards will be claiming that they have "taken poor people out of tax" when in fact they have slapped a 2.5% VAT increase on the poorest in society, cut benefits for the poorest in society, and only a tiny proportion of their £17bn income tax personal allowance increase actually helps the poor. Not for nothing do they carry the tag "Fib Dems".

But I don't hate all Lib Dems - and that differentiates me from some of the more tribal Labour Party types in the blogosphere. For example, I think Evan Harris is a fine upstanding left-wing secular rationalist who should be the party leader. Sadly, he lost in 2010 - mainly because he was a shit constituency MP and pissed off too many people. That was an idiotic mistake to make; but his profile is nonetheless very high, and if he walked out - perhaps to start a new left wing party (the Progressive Liberals? The Social Liberals? Plenty of possible names out there), possibly to join Labour or the Greens - he could take a lot of people with him. There is a thing called the Social Liberal Forum who are trying to take back the Lib Dem party from the Orange Book right wing nutters who have taken it over. We have already seen a fightback against right wing extremism in the Labour party, in the shape of Ed Miliband (although the process is still incomplete) and it is possible that Social Liberal Forum could pull off the same trick in the Lib Dems. What they lack at the moment is a high profile leader - it seems that all the potential Lib Dem leadership contenders, even the more left wing ones, are biding their time. Or maybe there just aren't any left wing Lib Dem MPs any more.

But I am in regular contact with several fine upstanding left-wingers in the Lib Dems - and my friendly message to these people is, GET OUT NOW. You are doing the Tories' dirty work for them, destroying an honourable political party, and tarnishing your own reputations. PULL THE FUCKING PLUG, form a new party (or join one of the others) and start living the real deal rather than a lie. The country will thank you for it, and you'll feel much better.

Some unexpected and welcome pre-Xmas turbulence for the "Coalition"

This week, which politically I would have expected to be very boring, has turned out quite interesting, thanks to those Good Old Boys at the Daily Telegraph. First we had Vince Cable claiming "I can bring down the coalition any time I want" (er, how? Pulling the Cable? Ho ho) and then a variety of other Lib Dem ministers saying that George Osborne is Not A Very Nice Guy. Well we know that kids, but neither is Cleggie and you voted him leader...

But it does show that the Lib Dems - apart from Clegg and a few other crypto-Tories like David Laws and incredibly, Shirley Williams - are not "down with the kids" with the Tories in quite the way the media has portrayed it. Behind the scenes there are all manner of tensions and unhappinesses building up.

And I guess with the LDs slipping to 8% in the poll ratings you would expect that. The question is: will it bring the govt down?

Given the parliamentary arithmetic, I don't see how it can. Let's say there are 10 Lib Dem MPs who will stick with the Tories no matter what - that's probably a very conservative (sorry) estimate. That makes 316 MPs and they need 324 to survive a no confidence vote. So it would just be a matter of getting the Northern Ireland unionists on board and there they have it. If there were only 280 Tory MPs rather than 306 then maybe it would be on the cards. But unless Clegg is deposed and the new Lib Dem leader whips his party to vote against the Tories on a no confidence vote, I can't see it. And given the poll situation that would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. It seems unlikely...

But in any case, anything that makes the Conservative-led govt (as Ed Miliband is now cunningly referring to it, and I think he's right) is fine with me. 2011 could well be the year where the Tories join the Lib Dems in the opinion poll basement. Labour 20 points in front by the end of next year does not sound unrealistic. And that at least means Ed Miliband's job will be secure. Meanwhile, it's up to the new alliance of students and trade unionists to challenge the ConDems on the streets...

Ed is capturing the real spirit of the Lib Dems

A very good press conference today by Ed Miliband, with a clear message to the Lib Dems: if you are pissed off with the extreme right approach of Nick Clegg, we are happy to work with you. As a first step, former Lib Dem policy director Richard Grayson has agreed to submit papers to the forthcoming Labour policy review.

This is good politics from Ed. Nick Clegg is essentially interested in furthering the interests of just one politician: Nick Clegg. He's been completely willing to abandon any principled position just for five years at the Cabinet table and presumably the chicken run to a safe Tory seat at the end of it. The other Lib Dem ministers went along with it like the spineless bunch of collaborators they are, but people like Vince Cable and Steve Webb must know that the game is up. Less than 10% in most of the recent polls... if more than a handful of Lib Dems survive at the next election it'll be a miracle.

But of course some of them could save their asses by either pulling out and forming a new party, or joining Labour. It's going to look like a more and more attractive option as the next election comes closer. And Ed is very well advised to pick up as many defectors and collaborators from the Lib Dems as he can.

Given the disaster that was the later stages of Tony Blair's premiership it's hard to remember that the guy had a few good ideas early on - and one of them was getting closer to the Lib Dems. Electoral reform was another. If we'd had some kind of formal arrangement between Labour and the Lib Dems during the New Labour period, we'd have never had the ToryCrat coalition, and we would have saved the country a whole lot of pain and anger.

But for now, the Lib Dems are going the way of the Liberals in the 1930s... any of you politics historians remember the result of the 1945 election? With the Liberals reduced to about 3 seats? Welcome to 2015. Although there has been a trend towards 3-party politics in the UK (and more, if you include the nationalists) since the 1970s, in England at least I feel we are headed very much back to 2-party politics next time round. With the Lib Dems reduced to (say) 5% or so, that only leaves the question of where those disaffected Lib Dem votes will go. At the moment they seem to be breaking 2 to 1 in favour of Labour, who have gone from 7-point deficit with the Tories in the general election to at least level pegging and probably a small lead. And that's not with Ed and the shadow cabinet firing on all cylinders, by any means. Needless to say, none of this looks good for the David Cameron project.

I am the Laws

And so David Laws wins the prize for shortest ministerial career to date (although he'll probably be back at some point if this coalition holds up.

While the manner of his departure - feeling unable to come out because of possible prejudice - is unfortunate, the media reaction - that the Coalition has been deprived of some sort of star performer - is ludicrous. Laws's main attributes seemed to be a hard-right approach to economic policy and a wish to cut public expenditure as much as possible. What's so great about that? He was the Judge Dredd of the coalition administration. A Tory by any other name.

Similarly, fears that Laws's replacement, Danny Alexander, will be somehow not up to the job, are equally laughable. In one of my previous jobs I spent some time talking to Danny Alexander for a project I was doing on welfare policy and found him to be very on-the-ball. I have little idea what his general political stance is, but the idea that he's out of his depth is frankly ludicrous. I don't know how the newspapers get away with writing crap like that.

The strange death of the Lib Dems?

The Labour Party is currently reporting a surge in new members since the coalition was formed - including a large number of disaffected Lib Dems. Interestingly, the Lib Dems are also reporting some (net) increase in numbers. So there could be a lot of people out there who like the idea of the coalition and want to do something to help. Or, these could be entryists of some kind wanting to wreck it. At this stage it's impossible to say.

If this coalition arrangement does work out - and that's a big if - one thing we might see is a Tory/Lib Dem merger down the line. Which would be a huge coup for Cameron, as he would have succeeded in moving the membership power base away from the extreme right with lots of new socially and economically liberal types - the sort of people the Guardian's Julian Glover likes to eulogise - brought in.

More accurately it'd probably be half a merger because the other half would have upped and joined Labour or the Greens some time before then. Leaving - what exactly, in the middle of British politics?

Maybe nothing at all. That's right kids, we could be back to 2-party politics, last seen in its purest form in the UK around 1970 or thereabouts. If that happens, a 2015 election where both Labour and the Tories get over 40% of the vote each - again, last seen in 1970 - could be on the cards.

My guess is that a rump Liberal Democrat party - the true believers in Third Force Politics - will persist even if the party does disintegrate along the lines I suggest. Does anyone remember the "Old Liberals" or "splinter Liberals", otherwise known as The Liberal Party? These guys are fantastic. Their logo is straight out of a Co-op supermarket ad from 1973 or so. They had a party political broadcast a few years back (may have been 1997 or 2001) which consisted of a couple of guys sitting at a trestle table telling it like it is. Old Skool! We need more of this in British politics.

As parties split, merge and shift over the years, they do seem to leave a snakeskin train of detritus behind them. As my mate Clarkey pointed out to me there is also a splinter SDP complete with the original 1981 logo. Their main policy commitment seems to be to leave the EU - ironic, given that one of the reasons the SDP was formed was that Labour wanted to leave the EU in the early 1980s. What goes around comes around.

Extraordinarily, Veritas, whom I last blogged about in the 2005 election, still seem to be going in some shape or form. I didn't even know Kilroy was still alive...

Could it be a late negative surge for the LDs?

It's preposterous to make a lot out of one poll but the YouGov tracker shows Labour strengthening and the Lib Dems appearing to collapse to not much more than what they were at when "Cleggmania" started: Tory 35%, Lab 30, LibDem 24.

I'll be rather pissed off if the Lib Dems do deflate to the low-to-mid 20s as I genuinely thought we were within inches of getting rid of the same old shitty electoral system and the same morons going round and round again ad infinitum. But if Labour does pick up several points of late support - while holding the Tories at 35 or below - I'll be pleased, I guess. It's better than majority Tory govt anyway.

It's hard to say at the moment as loads of people have already voted via postal vote, so the polls don't necessarily get more accurate as we get nearer the election date, even assuming that sampling is correct and that people are giving accurate responses. Postal voting also means that the much-vaunted exit polls aren't really that helpful either. The upshot of all this, kids, is that it's going to be unpredictable whatever forecast, simulation or divination method you use. You'll just have to tune in on the night itself.

I've mainly posted this as it gives me an opportunity to relate a story about the missing SDP/Alliance "late surge" of 1987. The Alliance claimed that in the 1983 election they'd had a sudden surge of support at the end of the campaign (maybe when Michael Foot's trestle table gave way?) which took them to 26%, almost overtaking Labour. In 1987 they were running a clear third but for the last two weeks of the campaign I can vividly remember Alliance politicians saying that there was bound to be a "late surge" of support. No reason was given for this other than "it happened last time, so you just wait and see." Hey guys, on that basis we don't even need to spend all this money on an election, because, y'know, it happened last time...

Of course this "late surge" turned out to be a load of Optrex eyewash and the poor bastards in the Alliance only polled 23% - down three. It didn't stop some wag writing into the Essex Chronicle the week after the election saying, "I've noticed that there are several Alliance posters still up in Chelmsford a week after the election. Could this be evidence of a 'late surge'"? They was tough times, but I still had to laugh at that one.

The other amusing story from the 1987 campaign is that the Alliance candidate in Chelmsford was called Stuart Mole. On some of the posters on the Baddow Road in Chelmsford, some cleverclogs (the same guy who wrote into the Chronicle maybe?) had used felt pen to draw a pair of glasses onto Mr Mole, and had crossed out "Stuart" and written "Adrian". Ah, the wit...

The nearest I came to any kind of name-altering comedy in the election was in 1992 as a student at Oxford where a leaflet went round saying "Vote Steve Hocking Conservative" and I changed it with blue pen and tippex to "Vote Steve Fucking Conservative". Well, it seemed funny at the time.

Any of you Smash robots out there got any other amusing election poster defacement stories? By all means send 'em in.

Talk is cheap...

Interesting comments by Nick Clegg in the Guardian today implying that he would look first to the Tories to form a coalition if, as expected, the election result produces no clear winner.

His grounds for doing so are that it's absurd that Labour would be propped up by the Lib Dems if - as the polls seem to suggest - they came 3rd in the national vote share.

That's a reasonable argument. It would be ridiculous for the 3rd place party to provide the Prime Minister - even if Labour came first in number of seats.

However, Clegg is - sensibly - insisting on proportional representation as a precondition of any deal. At first sight this seems to rule out a Lib Dem-Tory coalition as Dave Cameron has said he doesn't want PR introduced. What happens if the electoral arithmetic means that a majority Lib Dem/Tory or Lib Dem/Labour coalition is possible, and Cameron says no to PR, but Brown says yes? It would be surprising if the Lib Dems and Labour weren't able to come to some kind of agreement - even if it meant Brown stepping down as PM in favour of Clegg.

Many would say there's no way Brown would agree to do that but if the alternative is a Tory government (albeit a minority Tory government) then maybe...

Labour have been making mixed messages about PR and the Lib Dems for some time now. In the progressive corner we have Alan Johnson, who sounds very ready to countenance PR (he must be regretting he didn't carry through on the leadership bid last summer - would have made things a hell of a lot easier now, for sure). In the reactionary corner, we have the likes of Ed Balls, who claims that coalition governments are not "the British way". Well that's because of the insane electoral system Ed... but we can actually, y'know, change the electoral system?

A wolf in sheeps clothing is well known tanning salon devotee Peter Hain, who is in favour of Alternative Vote (a complete fudge which combines non-proportionality with being relatively hard to understand, thus being worse than either PR or FPTP) but who says (in the aforementioned Guardian article) that PR is bad because it breaks the link between an MP and his or her constituents "and so makes it more difficult to sack corrupt MPs". Er... been hiding under a rock for the last year, Peter? FPTP really did a good job of rooting out expenses corruption, didn't it? And the "constituency link" is the most overrated piece of bullshit argument I have ever seen. For most of my life I have lived in seats in Essex represented by the most dreadful right-wing Tories - people I have nothing in common with ideologically whatsoever. At least in multi-member constituencies like in the European elections there is a chance of having a Labour or Lib Dem MP who represents (to some extent) your views even if you live in the Tory heartland.

But basically, talk is cheap at this stage and the three party leaders can say whatever the hell they want about PR, coalitions etc... my guess is that if we do get that balanced parliament (I prefer 'balanced' to 'hung' as it sounds like no-one's died, which is in fact the case) then people will be modifying their positions pretty damn quickly. My guess is either (a) Lib Dem/Lab coalition or (b) a short-term minority Tory government followed by new elections later in the year. But we certainly can't rule out the Lib Dem/Tory deal at this stage.

Seconds out... round 2

I'm looking forward to tonight's foreign policy debate, in which Nick Clegg surely has an advantage because the Lib Dems are planning not to spend £100 billion on a replacement for Trident, which at a time when public funds are pretty scarce, makes them pretty sane, and the other two parties loopy.

For sure, Cameron and Brown will try to do the old 1980s Cold War trick of portraying Clegg as soft on defence. But it ain't 1987, and most of the country has surely moved on. Apart from the kind of people who are persuaded by the ludicrously pro-Tory line of the Sun and the Mail; but then, they're the hardcore Tory voters - 30% of the electorate - anyway. Not the swing voters.

As the only major party who opposed the Iraq war, the Lib Dems also have a big "I told you so" advantage there.

It's quite possible we could see a further boost to Lib Dem polling after this debate - as long as Clegg can do as well as he did last time. It'll be tougher in one way as both Brown and Cameron will be gunning for him more than last time. On the other hand, that gives him the chance to carve out a distinctive position in one of the areas where Lib Dem policy is distinctive - and more progressive - than Labour or the Tories.

If we see the Lib Dems at 38% or so in the polls after this debate - the level at which they start to win hundreds of seats on a uniform swing - prepare for absolute fucking PANIC STATIONS at Labour and Tory central. Although my preference going into the election was for Labour, I'm really rather enjoying this, and would love it if the Lib Dems went all the way into Number 10. A fair voting system after all these years, eh? Who'd have thought it?

Lib Dems up to 34% on YouGov... any of you Tories starting to get nervous out there?

Hopes among leading Tory strategists (leading Labour strategists have been somewhat quieter on this point, of which more later) that the Lib Dem surge would fade away are quashed by a poll for YouGov today which has the Lib Dems continuing to hoover up swing voters, up to 34% while the Tories fall to 31% and Labour slips further to 26% (although they won't be too worried as long as they're still within shouting distance of the Tories).

The dreadful Dave Cameron 'big pitch' party political broadcast from last night may have contributed to the Tories' decline, with Dave apparently ditching a broadcast attacking Labour at the last minute to deliver a vacuous speech to camera about how the Tories were the "real change." Great stuff Dave, except that Nick Clegg is selling your basic shtick a lot better than you are... Jesus Christ, the Tories must really be bricking themselves now. Their lead over Labour is almost certainly not enough to beat them in terms of number of seats, and meanwhile they are going to be handing a lot of seats over to the Lib Dems on this kind of swing.

If the Lib Dems maintain support at this level, the only thing that can really save Tory hopes of a majority is for the Labour vote to collapse to the low 20s - which I guess is just possible, but seems extremely unlikely. Certainly the Labour approach at the moment seems to be to have faith that their core vote will hold at the 25-30% mark, be nice to the Lib Dems (witness for example Peter Mandelson saying today that he can understand why people want to vote for them, pretty much an admission that New Labour is crap) and hit the Tories as hard as possible to help the Lib Dems as much as themselves. The Tory approach, by contrast - which involves hitting everybody else as much as possible - means they are spread thinly and looking negative.

The next leaders' debate is going to be fascinating. We know Cameron will try to hit the Lib Dems as hard as possible but what's Gordon Brown going to do? My guess is he'll offer some token skirmishes with Clegg but will turn the big guns on Dave.

YouGov also suggests that about 50% of the electorate would vote for the Lib Dems if they thought they could win a majority. Of course, if 50% really did vote for them, they'd probably win about 500 seats. Could it become a self-fulfilling bandwagon? We're not there yet. But there's still time.

Uncharted territory

New YouGov poll today takes the Lib Dems into the previously uncharted territory of being in the lead: Lib Dem 33%, Tories 32, Labour 26.

The BBC calculator reckons this would leave the Tories with slightly more seats than Labour but still about 80 or so short of a majority, with the Lib Dems on about 140 seats. Again, this would mean that either Labour or the Tories could form a coalition with the Lib Dems.

Given that Clegg says he will in the first instance approach the party with the strongest "mandate" - which on seats, in this case, would be the Tories - we need to start thinking seriously about how a Lib Dem/ Tory coalition would play out. The main issue is that the differences between the two parties on electoral reform are so great that I don't see how it can happen unless Cameron caves in and agrees to STV for general elections (possible if he's desperate enough) or Clegg abandons his demands (again possible, but he'd be a fool, particularly as he'd almost definitely get more traction on this with Labour.)

The most likely scenario if we do get the Tories as the largest party but a very long way short of a majority is that the Queen invites Cameron to form a government, he gets defeated on a confidence vote, and then we get a Labour/Lib Dem coalition.

It would all be a lot easier, however, if Labour does manage to secure more seats than the Tories. That way, Brown would probably get the chance to form a government first and no-one would have to f*** around with Dave Cameron.

It could be, of course, that Brown gets the chance to form a coalition even if Labour has less seats than the Tories. In Feb 1974, as the sitting PM, Ted Heath was allowed a few days to try to thrash out a deal with the Liberals even though the Tories had less seats (but more votes) than Labour.

The problem, as so often in British politics, is that there aren't clearly codified rules for this sort of thing - just convention and the views of self-appointed "constitutional experts". So don't blame me if the whole thing falls apart and we have anarchy on the streets. (But then, some of you kids are just waiting for that, aren't you?)

The election has now become great fun. Like one of those American football plays where someone fumbles the ball, once it gets picked up, the carefully-planned set pieces that the coaches have relied on for so many years are useless and the players on the field are forced to rely on their instincts. It's painfully obvious that neither Labour nor Tory strategists (nor indeed, Lib Dem strategists) had planned for a scenario where the Lib Dems suddenly leapfrog into the lead 2 weeks into the campaign. It's entirely possible that the Lib Dem bandwagon could become an unstoppable force - particularly if Clegg can persuade the huge numbers of people that have zoned out of politics completely over the last few years to give him a chance. If the Lib Dems can get up to about 40%, we could be looking at a Lib Dem landside victory. And then... who the hell knows?

As one of the media commentators in the Sunday papers (can't remember who unfortunately) was saying, the Daily Telegraph may have handed Nick Clegg the election by breaking the expenses scandal last summer. Although a few Lib Dems were involved in that, the overwhelming focus was on Labour and Tory MPs. This created a climate where attacking the "old politics" is a more effective strategy than ever before. In a way, all Clegg had to do in that first debate was look like an honest and competent guy - and he certainly delivered on that. It may get harder for the Lib Dems as other parties scrutinise their policies (although most of the attacks delivered by Labour and the Tories so far are laughable) but the evidence is that huge swathes of voters stopped listening to both Labour and the Tories some time ago.

It could be that the only way to save the "old politics" after the election is a Labour-Conservative coalition. That doesn't bear thinking about.

God, I love elections... wish we could have one every year.

Civil liberties (or lack thereof), the Lib Dems and saving the UK from minority dictatorship

Strange spin on the imminent Liberal Democrat manifesto launch from the Guardian: "Nick Clegg goes to war with Labour." And yes, Nick Clegg is criticising the Government's record on civil liberties. But hold on.... the Tories don't gave a shit about civil liberties either, guys. Doesn't any of the Guardian editorial team remember Michael Howard as Home Secretary? The guy was an authoritarian nut.

Nonetheless, Nick Clegg is quite right to castigate Labour for the imposition of a police state, where environmental protesters are subject to brutal beatings by the police, we are spending billions of pounds on an ID cards scheme that will be totally ineffective, etc. etc. It's good that someone has the balls to stand up to the fascists at the Daily Mail, because Gordon Brown sure ain't got them. In fact he is good mates with the odious Paul Dacre, the Mail editor.

The rather abstract feelgood cover for the Labour manifesto should have consisted of three short senteces in red on white, as big a typeface as they could fit on A4 (or whatever size it is this time):

FUCK MURDOCH. FUCK THE MAIL. FUCK THE EXPRESS.

Laying down your credentials from the very start. That's what it's about. Remember the dearly departed Malcolm McLaren? He got it right with the Pistols album. NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS... HERE'S THE SEX PISTOLS. A clear statement of what it was about, straight out of Year Zero. Political parties, take note.

The hilariously titled Tory Manifesto, "Invitation to Join the Governmnent of Britain", should have been called "Invitation to get screwed over" but at least shows the Chaps have a sense of humour.

The best ever manifesto cover remains Labour 1997. Tony Blair's grinning mug, back when he seemed like the Messiah, and simply: "New Labour. Because Britain Deserves Better". In its own way as iconic as "Never Mind the Bollocks". I also liked the "little red book" from 2005 because of its sheer understatement.

I think playing hard on civil liberties will help the Lib Dems - would be nice to see them get 25% in this election and I'm happy for Clegg to attack Labour if it means they tend to take votes more from the Tories than Labour. With the Tories being squeezed by the Lib Dems and UKIP from opposite directions, we could yet see them as low as 35% or so in the final poll... which would (most likely) mean a hung parliament, although a strong Labour showing ("strong" being strictly relative here - I mean 32% or so, on a par with their 1987 shown which was seen at the time as disastrous!) could still mean a Labour majority.

I'm now of the view that Labour being (say) 20 seats short of a majority and a coalition with the Lib Dems would actually be a better outcome for the country than a Labour majority. Because the ludicrous situation where Labour could get an overall majority on about 33% of the vote has brought home, once and for all, that British "democracy" is f***ed, and it will only be fixed if the Liberal Democrats are involved in the government - because they're the only major party recommending STV. Also, we are a lot more likely to make progress on civil liberties under a coalition than under another majority Labour Government. The question is: can Clegg get enough votes to emerge with the balance of power on May 7th? I don't have huge confidence in him, but on the evidence of recent interviews (including the Paxman grilling where I think he did pretty well), he may be just about up to the task.

Labour now SURPASSING 2005 levels of popularity(?)

Tonight's Evening Standard - a craphouse of a paper to be sure, but I just had to buy it...

Labour have closed to within 3 points in the latest MORI poll. Labour 37, Tories 40, Lib Dems 12 (12! That's f***ing useless. How long can Clegg last?)

At only 3 points down, Labour would actually have a reasonable chance of squeaking through with an overall majority - due to the insane bias of the electoral system, as I wrote in the last post. 

Gordon Brown must really be starting to fancy his chances now. What price a spring 2009 election? If Labour is level pegging or better by February, it's got to be on the cards. 

And if Tony Blair is anywhere out there - remember when you got 35% of the vote in 2005? Gordon might end up beating you. Ha ha. 

Right, that's enough of the polls for a bit. 

Labour now back to 2005 levels of popularity

Hello any Blairites still out there. Remember when yer man limped his party home with 35% of the vote in the '05 election? And remember when you all said Gordon Brown was going to be bloody awful, we'd miss Tony when he was gone, etc.? And remember the several months of '08 when we were agreeing with you? 

What a difference a financial crisis makes. OK, so the Sunday Telegraph had a poll with Labour on only 30% - but no-one reads that except 'Van Patten' who sometimes posts on here, and he's a mentalist. Lookee at The Times yesterday and we find a Populus poll with the following numbers: 

Labour - 35%

Tories - 41%

Lib Dems - 16%

That's Labour back on 35% - and possibly with further to climb. The difference from '05, of course, is that the Tories are on 41%, not 33%. It's likely - although not certain - that if the country voted like that at the general election, Cameron would have a small majority. But any further tightening and the current bias towards Labour in the electoral system means we are definitely into hung parliament territory. 

Or even, the nightmare scenario for the Tories of Labour being perhaps 3% down in the popular vote and still winning a majority... that's the insanity of first-past-the-post for you, and time was when the Conservatives gave a rat's ass about that kind of thing. There were a lot of people talking about the 'elective dictatorship' in the mid-70s when Harold Wilson had a Commons majority (just) on 39% of the vote. Fast forward to a govt elected with 35% of the vote and we hear... not a peep out of the Tories. Crazy. 

And even the Lib Dems seem pretty quiet about electoral reform these days. They're too busy trying to cut taxes and spending. Monetarism 30 years too late, guys! Get with the program! Seriously, does anybody know what planet Nick Clegg is on? This guy has to be the biggest disappointment as a political leader since David Owen, at least. (Ming Campbell wasn't a disappointment because no-one expected him to be any good in the first place.) Vince Cable should lead a (metaphorical) assassination attempt on Clegg, because otherwise the Lib Dems are gonna be back to a complete rump party with a handful of seats and even less influence than they have now. Sad, very sad. 

Good initial signs from "The Clegg"... sort of

Well, Nick Clegg won the Lib Dems leadership election - by a much narrower margin than the pundits expected - but as very few of the pundits are (I imagine) Liberal Democrat party members, what the hell would they know?

Clegg has the obvious drawback of looking like of a Dave Cameron clone, but having met him in person (something I can't say for Dave) he seems a reasonably nice guy. Early omens were good this morning when, on the ludicrously named "Radio 5 Live"(what, so no other radio station has live shows, then?) Clegg said he didn't believe in God. Finally a sane man at the top... pass the copy of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion many of you probably received for Christmas last year (oh, the irony).

(Clegg then balanced his ticket somewhat by pointing out his wife was Catholic and his kids were being brought up Catholic. See, this is how the virus perpetuates itself... the Church insists on indoctrinating the kids before they are too old to know better. I'm sure we'd still get some religious nutters even if faith schools were abolished - but probably a lot less of them.)

Clegg has also brought in Brian Eno, of all people, as an adviser on "how to reach out beyond Westminster to people who don't get a say in politics." This could lead to some very interesting possibilities, e.g.:

• keynote speeches at the next Lib Dem conference being filtered through Eno's synthesiser array to give the general effect of whalesong, or insects walking on formica.
• policy being chosen on the basis of the 'Oblique Strategies' card deck.
  

All in all, then, some positive potential for 'Cleggie' and maybe there is also the opportunity for a remake of Last of the Summer Wine (maybe with Ming Campbell as 'Foggy')... but an ominous note was struck when Clegg's first policy idea on education - raising state school expenditure per pupil to the level of private schools - is a direct rip from Gordon Brown. We'll have to watch this space to see how it develops.

Fare Well Camp Bell

A sad day, in many ways, that Ming Campbell has resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I will miss his straight talking no-bullshit style (promised, but so far not delivered, by Gordon Brown) and wish him all the best. He never looked like Prime Minister material, but then neither did John Major, and he did the job for almost seven years... in any case, since when was there a realistic prospect of any Lib Dem leader becoming PM?

In the end, Campbell was done in by the media requirement for photogenic, identikit political leaders - politicians like reality TV stars. I have no doubt that Gordon Brown would have suffered exactly the same fate if he'd ascended to the Labour leadership after a long period of opposition, rather than being in the government for ten years beforehand. He's only been indulged so far as he's got previous form. And on the evidence of the last week's shenanigans, that might all be rapidly unravelling. But that is excitement for another post...

Now I'm not saying that Campbell was perfect - in many ways he was a one-man revivalist for the Michael Foot school of politics - the amiable old buffer zone... but then Foot was great too. Certainly infinitely preferable to Thatcher in '83.

Anyway, this raises the interesting question of who the Lib Dems will go for next... I think Nick Clegg would be their best bet. Certainly not Chris Huhne, who is an egotist to rival Robert Kilroy-Silk. And Vince Cable, while a great guy and an excellent Shadow Chancellor, works a lot better in that role than he would as leader. Most of the other alternatives are either too eccentric to be successful or too right-wing to be tolerable.

Anyway, the leadership contest offers a little consolation now that the election has been called off for at least 18 months.