David Cameron has played a blinder to get to this position

At the General Election, the Conservatives registered a count of 307 seats.   Throughout 2009, it looked as though we would win an overall majority.   Having noted the performance of UKIP, I am now convinced that what cost the Conservatives that overall majority was in large part connected with the withdrawal of the proposal to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.  UKIP had always said that they would have supported the Conservatives at the General Election if they had maintained the policy.

There are some Conservatives (Lord Tebbit was one of them) who wanted the Conservatives to continue with the policy on holding a referendum.  They may have won an election outright but they would have been taking a much bigger risk with the National Interest and the party’s interest further down the line.  A referendum on the Lisbon treaty post ratification would have been a referendum on membership of the Euro.  The ultimate scenario could have spelt disaster.   Britain might have voted itself out of Europe and the Conservative Party might have fatally torn itself apart.

Looking at Conservative Policy and politics over the last four years, it is quite obvious that in appreciating the scale of the task for getting back to power, the Conservatives were planning the scenario of a hung parliament, just as they were looking at every alternative to avoid it.  Competing aggressively for the centre ground of politics was one part of the strategy.  Their green policy was not just an ethical consideration of the Environment.  Their libertarian approach to politics was not merely shaped by philosophy.  Much of the drive behind these policies was a determination to fight the ground of the Liberal Democrats.  In large part, this strategy succeeded.  There was little opportunity for the Lib Dems to advance until the TV debate during the election campaign. 

Consider also the Conservative strategy for Scotland.  The Conservatives did not win any new seats in Scotland.  However, they did buy political kudos from the Scottish Nationalists by agreeing to allow them to govern at the Scottish Assembly.  The Scottish Nationalists have six MPs.  They could, passively or actively, play a crucial part in the negotiations for a new Government in the next few days. 

Consider also the Conservative approach to Northern Ireland.  The Conservatives had hoped that the link up with the UUP would have delivered them extra seats.  Alas, by the beginning of the year, once it became obvious that the link up with the UUP was not going to deliver, the Conservatives got their hands dirty with the DUP, hence the Hatfield House talks and the Fermanagh South Tyrone deal.  The latter gamble did not pay off.  Whilst I did not agree with the deal, it was understandable.  We can at least say that it was out of Character for our leadership to agree that.  The hung parliament spectre was the driving force behind it.  In a future post, I will be setting out my proposal as to how the Conservatives in Northern Ireland should respond to the problem left behind by that deal.

Recently, it was reported that the Conservatives were promising an extra £200 million following further talks with the DUP.  That is entirely consistent with a stratagem to deal with the hung Parliament problem.  Unlike deals on representation and candidates, I do not consider that kind of deal to be pernicious.  The Government has to do what is best for the Country as a whole.  However, there are others who will criticise such a deal as pandering to sectarianism.  Indeed, Lord Ashdown yesterday was asking the question as to whether David Cameron was going to do a deal with “the Orangemen.”  

Lord Ashdown’s comments betray a fear within the Liberal Democrat camp that their hand might not quite be strong enough to push for for an unconditional committment to their holy grail of proportional representation in Parliamentary Elections. 

With the option of governing on the basis of a minority government, the Conservatives, just as they threw away the referendum policy on Europe, have to consider the National interest in their approach to forming a Government.  The Country has a debt mountain to deal with.  We have a war in Afghanistan.  The Country needs the strongest possible Government.  It is absolutely right that the Conservatives should give priority to trying to make a deal with the Liberal Democrats.  

Yesterday, David Cameron set out the Conservative position.  He made a momentous speech setting out bullet point terms for the Lib Dems joining in partnership.  He outlined the issues on which there would not be negotiation, such as the policy on immigration.  In proposing an all party committee on electoral reform, with a promise to implement legislation on the basis of its recommendations, David Cameron has effectively made it almost impossible for the Lib Dems to become involved in a grand coalition with Gordon Brown.  Indeed, I proposed in one of my recent posts that David Cameron should make some sort of offer on elections for precisely that reason.  David Cameron has now shot Gordon Brown’s Fox. 

Taking together everything that has happened, David Cameron has played a blinder for the Conservatives since the moment he became our leader.  Yes, he makes mistakes but he always manages to adjust very quickly.  It is hard not to look at his performance with a certain amount of awe.  He may yet turn out to be one of Britain’s greatest ever politicians.

The future will be brighter in Northern Ireland under a Conservative Government

As we reach the final stages of the election campaign, the polls suggest that the Conservatives are going to gain the largest number of seats but will be just short of an overall majority.  The situation is still, of course, highly volatile but with the likelihood of a hung parliament, the importance of how Northern Irish voters make their decision in a General Election has never been greater. 

The backdrop for Northern Ireland voters is that with the UK in so much debt and the Republic of Ireland economy in so much trouble, there are very tough times ahead, whatever the outcome of the election.  However, I maintain that the outcome of the election, whatever your tradition, will be as important to you as it will be to any citizen in Britain.  What I say here is directed to anybody who is a voter in a Northern Ireland constituency, with the exception of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.  I have expressed my view on the circumstances of that constituency here and here.

All of the political parties that are represented in Northern Ireland have now produced their manifestoes. 

Sinn Fein was the last party to produce their manifesto.  Their policies are as vacuous as ever.  They do not take up their seats in Parliament.  Taken together, they have absolutely nothing to offer the electorate.  All that a Sinn Fein MP achieves by election is the title “MP” and a salary with expenses.  When the Conservatives are elected, they will pass legislation so that neither Sinn Fein MPs, nor any other MPs that do not take up their seats, will be able to draw upon expenses.

The SDLP, by identity, is an Irish Nationalist party but for the purpose of the General Election, I am not interested in their Nationalism. Historically, they line up with the Labour Party in the Westminster Parliament on matters which don’t specifically concern Northern Ireland.  What is most important, for the purposes of this election, is that SDLP MPs support the Labour Government.  If you watched the Northern Ireland leader’s debate last week, you would have heard Margaret Ritchie explaining that. 

If you habitually vote for the SDLP or you are thinking of voting for them, I ask you to think of them as the Labour Party.  If your constituency is North Down, it is also reasonable to treat Lady Sylvia Hermon, who is now supported by the SDLP, as a representative of Labour. 

NI voters need not concern themselves with Labour’s policies for Education or the Health service.  Those are matters for the Assembly.  However, I would urge NI voters to think in terms of which party is best suited to run the Economy and deal with other non-devolved matters such as Immigration.  If you have decided on the answer to that question, then I respect your voting choice if the Labour Party is still your preferred party of Government.

If you feel that Britain and Northern Ireland need a change of Government and you are broadly in agreement with Conservative economic policy, I urge you to put aside any notion of what has gone on before and vote for one of the 17 Parliamentary Conservative and Unionist candidates who are campaigning on behalf of the Conservative Party.

The Democratic Unionist Party currently has 9 MPs.  Their core policy for the UK Parliament is simple and clear.  They are telling unionists that they will use a hung Parliament in order to extract or defend funding for Northern Ireland.  If you are a Unionist and you are taking that prospect seriously, then I urge you further to take into account the following points.

It has been suggested that during the Labour administration, the DUP extracted concessions from the Government.  Peter Robinson has alluded to concessions given when they supported them over the 42 bill.  Do not be fooled by that or by anything else the DUP tell you.  There was, in reality, no funding for Northern Ireland as a result of that vote. 

The DUP may also point to Policing and Justice, where extra funding was obtained to support devolution.  There are two things to say about that.  Firstly, it was the last piece of the Devolution jigsaw puzzle.  The supportive funding was a one-off.  Secondly, the Government made those funding concessions to support devolution, not the DUP specifically. 

The reality is that Gordon Brown has not bribed Peter Robinson at all.  If Brown was into that game, the outcome of the Presbyterian Mutual Society problem might have been different.  Incidentally, savers with the PMS have every reason to hope for a different result when the Conservatives take office.  When in office, they will look at the affair afresh and consider taking a different approach.

If DUP MPs start looking for special favours from the Conservatives to keep them in power, the Conservatives will, firstly, appeal to Northern Ireland MPs to put the nation’s interests first, particularly in these difficult times.  However, they will not be making any concessions to the DUP.  Memories still linger of the “bribe” negotiations between Labour and Ulster Unionist MPs in 1978 and 1979.  Promises made by the Callaghan Government on the eve of no confidence motions erupted into national scandal.  The Conservatives would be taking a very bad gamble if they went down that route.

Voting for the DUP on the basis of potential leverage will not benefit Northern Ireland because it will not benefit the UK as a whole.  A strong Government with a working majority represents the best prospect for the UK during these difficult times.  

The broad way to differentiate between the Conservatives and Labour is in terms of their attitude towards state and economy.  The conservative approach is economy-centred.  Labour’s is state-centred.  Labour has never been able to break free from its “Robin Hood” approach to the economy.  Another description which sums up Labour’s approach is the “Nanny State.”  Whenever Labour has finished a spell in power, it has left the State sector larger, as a proportion of the overall economy, making it much harder for it to thrive in the future.

For people in Northern Ireland, the benefit of the Conservatives being interested in this region is that the Conservatives are committed to enabling Northern Ireland to break away from its dependance on the State.   The Conservative leadership has made its overtures on this subject.   This election represents an opportunity for voters in Northern Ireland to take ownership of that commitment by showing solidarity with the Conservatives and giving them the power that we all need them to have.

Unfortunately, because of the present state of the UK economy, Northern Ireland, like everywhere in Britain, is going to suffer from spending cuts during the first part of a Conservative administration.  That cannot be avoided.   In the medium and longer term, the Conservative Party is committed to reducing the dependency of the state sector and regenerating Northern Ireland’s private sector economy.  One measure for Northern Ireland, already promised to be implemented, is the is the reduction in the rate of Corporation tax so that it is consistent with the low levels of equivalent tax in the Republic of Ireland.  Further fiscal measures will be unveiled after the Conservatives have taken office while others, such as a review of Business rates, will be discussed with Northern Ireland politicians.  In conclusion, there is some short term economic pain ahead for Northern Ireland.  Further along, the future will be much brighter under the Conservatives.

David Cameron’s TV debate victory gives his troops the boost they needed

Last night, Conservative supporters were willing and wishing David Cameron to come out on top of the party leader’s TV debate.  David Cameron did not disappoint. 

Gordon Brown, having yesterday badly handled his “bigot” gaffe looked like a man whose confidence had been shot to pieces.  Indeed, he referred to it again. 

“There is a lot to this job and, as you saw yesterday, I don’t get all of it right.”

David Cameron managed to put clear blue water between the Conservatives and Labour on policy by highlighting the socialist tendancy to rely on the State to solve the nation’s problems. 

Cameron made two notable low blows against Gordon Brown.  He told the audience that Gordon Brown was unable to distinguish between the State and the Economy.  The nastiest punch of all came near the end when he accused Labour of regarding anybody earning more than £20,000 a year as being rich.

David Cameron needed to do more than just beat Gordon Brown.  He needed to come out on top of Nick Clegg.  He did not disappoint here either.  He shot two massive torpedoes into Nick Clegg’s cruiser on the Euro and Immigration. 

Commenting on the Lib Dem’s unstinting support for joining the Euro, David Cameron said this: 

“If we were in the euro now, your taxes and your National Insurance wouldn’t be going to schools and hospitals and police officers, they would be going to bail out Greece”, said David Cameron

Mr. Cameron also landed another blow on Nick Clegg over an amnesty proposal for some existing illegal immigrants.  The offending part of the Lib Dem manifesto says this

“We will allow people in Britain who have been in Britain without the correct papers for 10 years, but speak English, have a clean record and want to live long term to earn their citizenship”         [Lib-Dem Manifesto p.76]

Nick Clegg was caught in denial.  “I’m not advocating an amnesty,” he said.

It appears that Conservative prospects have gone up a couple of notches after last night but I would still not bet on a winning lead emerging in the opinion polls.  One thing is for sure. The outcome of the debate will sap Labour morale just as it will energise Conservative activists will go into the final week of the campaign.

Gambling first-past-the-post may be the best way to save it

David Milliband - Britain's next Prime Minister?

The prospect of a hung parliament has already started to bring out the worst in our politicians.  In particular, we are seeing how politicians are prepared to breach political ethics in order to advance personal or party self-interest.  Of course, they will argue, at the end of the day that their self-interest and the interest of the nation are inseparable.  

Just to give examples, we have already had our own local one in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.  David Cameron has effectively torn up the Memorandum of Understanding, reached with the UUP.  I don’t think that would have happened if the deteriorating position of Conservative electoral prospects had not loomed so large in the background.    

A few weeks ago, I highlighted the policy of the Labour Party to hold a referendum on a change of the system of voting.  It is a policy which Labour would never have concocted when it was in the ascendancy.   There are many Labour politicians who still believe, like the Conservatives, that the first past the post system is the one which is most likely to lead to strong elected Government.  Alas, the thinking behind the policy has little to do with the National interest.  It is Gordon Brown’s pure self ambition to remain as Prime Minister. 

If I was a novel writer, I would now be weaving a conspiracy theory into the facts.  It is February 2010.  Gordon Brown has just launched Labour’s green paper on changing the voting system.  The Conservative position is weakening.  Opportunities are knocking and two men, hungry for power, meet in the middle of the night at a secret location.  One of them is Nick Clegg.  The other is David Milliband. 

Back to the facts.  The Conservatives have declared, rightly, that they will not compromise on the first past the post system.  Unfortunately, it is not likely that the system will survive.  It is the one issue which shortens the odds of a Liberal – Labour coalition, rather than a Conservative – Liberal one. 

Nick Clegg - Probably Britain's next "King maker"

Nick Clegg appears to have put obstacles in the way of a Lib/Lab coalition.   He has said that the party with the Largest number of votes is the one which should have the primary right to be in power.  

So, assuming that the Conservatives have the largest number of votes, he will be talking, firstly, with David Cameron.  His next pre-condition, a change in the electoral system, has already been ruled out by the Conservatives, appearing to make a Con/Lib coalition inconceivable. 

The other pre-condition that Nick Clegg has laid down is the demise of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister.  How does he expect to achieve that?   As a conspiracy theorist, I might have suggested that the path to power had already been mapped out for him.  

Actually, my desire for a conspiracy is probably a back-door way of trying to underrate Nick Clegg.  I will admit here that I did underrate him.   A few weeks ago, it looked as though he would be a leader in charge of a party that lost a third of its seats to the Conservatives.  Now he is on the verge of having some power.   There are parallels between his position and the Earl of Warwick (“the King Maker”) during the Wars of the Roses.  

It is possible for Clegg to generate a coup within Labour simply by positioning himself in the way he has just done.  This could turn out to be one of the most brilliant political gambits of modern times.   Once there is a hung parliament, the electorate will expect the Liberals to reach some sort of a deal and compromise.  The Liberals will not get total PR from Labour but they will see the referendum as an opportunity to advance their policy.  However, they will need to extract something from Labour to remain credible.  Gordon Brown’s head on a platter will become the compromise. 

There will be resistance to that scenario.  Supporters of Gordon Brown will complain that they would be dancing to the tune of Nick Clegg.   

However, there is much attraction in this scenario for Labour.  They will have had renewal of their leadership without losing power.  The acceptable and much more electable face of David Milliband will appear as Prime Minister.  He will open the Olympic Games.  The memory will be etched in the Public mind.  By the time of the next election, the economy will have strengthened and the bad times will be well and truly over. 

There are two apparent problems with that but I think they would be ignored.  David Cameron has made the point that if there is an unelected Prime Minister, there has to be another General Election within 6 months.   He can say that but there is really no precedent for this situation.  Perhaps a more difficult problem for Labour is their internal rules.  Gordon Brown will have to co-operate with the coup, to a certain extent.  He would have to remain party leader for a couple of months until the new Prime Minister is officially elected.  I believe, however, that Gordon Brown could be persuaded to go.  There is something in it for him too.  He can proudly proclaim himself as the man who led Labour and the country through the worst recession since the War.  He would have his own legacy.  As he sails off into the sunset, he might even manage a real smile. 

Can Cameron do anything to stop this?  He can win the election, of course but I am assuming that the Conservatives will not have enough seats to form a Government without a coalition.  

David Cameron - Gambling first past the post may be the best way to try and save it

Perhaps there is one way that he can make it very awkward for Clegg.  He can offer a referendum changing the voting system to AV, just as Labour has done.  This is a risk with the system which he may have to take as being the lesser of two evils.  

Some Conservatives would find this very difficult to swallow.  It is not in their manifesto and they might balk at having to explain this apparent “u” turn to the public.  However, Cameron has the communication skills to deal with that. 

If they did such a deal, the Conservatives would be in a stronger position to campaign against the change while in power.  Furthermore, Labour MPs in opposition, particularly those who were reluctant will not feel so bound by their own policy and be more likely to campaign against it.

 We have never had so much uncertainty in British Politics.  It is now looking increasingly certain, firstly, that Nick Clegg will be the “Kingmaker” and secondly, that we will still not know Britain’s next Prime Minister by May 7^th.

Election 2010: the Northern Ireland seats really do count

Writing in the Sunday Times today, Michael Portillo forecasts that David Cameron will be Prime Minister “whatever the Maths.”  In other words, even if there is a hung Parliament which gives Labour a larger number of seats, Labour will not be allowed to be the Party of Government.

If the Conservatives are the largest party in Parliament, then there is no doubt that David Cameron will form the next Government.  The scenario that I have trouble with is where Labour has the largest number of seats in a hung parliament but where that number is still significantly ahead of the Conservatives. 

Portillo says

“If Labour fails to secure a majority — even if it wins more seats than the Conservatives — it ought to be booted out and in all likelihood would be.”

Portillo’s argument centres on the attitude of the minority parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats.  He says

“It would be especially difficult for the Liberal Democrats to support Labour if it had lost to the Tories in terms of the popular vote — the number of actual votes cast — which seems all but certain.”

Thre is little doubt that Clegg would not support Labour if the Conservatives were the largest party in Parliament.  Clegg partly declared his position on this scenario more than 18 months ago.  Clegg would support the setting of a budget but reserve the right to oppose public non-financial measures taken by the Government.  In the first year of the new parliament (at least), Cameron would effectively have a free hand to govern.

What is Clegg’s position if Labour is the largest party?  

The Conservatives only need a (uniform) swing of 1.5% against Labour to become the largest party in terms of the number of votes cast.  However, because the Conservatives pile up their supporters in the safe seats, they would need a (uniform) swing of 4.4% to become the party in Parliament with the largest number of seats (source: UK polling report swing calculator).   

Speaking to the BBC on the Andrew Marr show, Nick Clegg recently said

“Whichever party has the strongest mandate from the British people, it seems to me obvious in a democracy they have the first right to seek to try and govern, either on their own or with others “ 

What does “strongest mandate” mean – the largest number of MPs or the largest number of votes cast?  Unfortunately, the point was not properly “nailed” in that interview. 

If it means the largest number of votes cast, then on a 1.5% uniform swing, the Conservatives could end up with just 234 seats compared with Labour’s 324.  Labour would only be 2 seats short of an overall majority in Parliament.  In practice, with Sinn Fein winning 5 seats and not sitting in parliament, they would effectively have an overall majority. 

Let us now suppose that there is a uniform swing against Labour of 4.39%.  In that scenario, the Conservatives are just short of being the largest party in Parliament.  Labour would be the largest party in Parliament with 282 seats but with only 31.8% of the votes cast.  The Conservatives would have 37.66% of the vote and 281 seats.  Labour would be 44 seats short of an overall majority.  There is no way that Labour could effectively govern without the support of the Lib Dems.  The Conservatives might be able to form a Government with the forbearance of the Lib Dems but it would be highly unstable.  It would not be possible for the Conservatives to legislate the most controversial aspects of their manifesto.  A further General Election (perhaps within 2 years) would seem likely.

In between the two extremes of Labour having the largest number of seats in a hung parliament, there is a grey area where the smaller minority parties could make the difference.   In such a scenario, MPs from the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the DUP could extract concessions from Labour to keep them in power.  For example, they could agree not to alter the Barnett formula.  Such a strategy would not be without considerable risk for Labour in the medium and longer term. 

In the end, the onus is on the Prime Minister to offer his resignation to the Queen.  If Labour is still the largest parliamentary party, they would be within their rights to review the possibility of continuing in Government.  There is already some historical precedent.

In February 1974, Labour won the largest number of seats (301 against 297 for the Conservatives) but fell short of an overall majority by 19 seats.  The outgoing Prime Minister, Ted Heath, did not resign immediately.  He only did so after attempting to form a coalition Government with the Liberals, led by Jeremy Thorpe.  In theory Ted Heath could have tried to form a coalition with the Ulster Unionists (then 11 MPs) but the price would have been the dismantling of Sunningdale.  Harold Wilson became prime minister for the second time but his Government did not have the stability that it needed.  After some of its bills were voted down in the Commons, Wilson called another general election later that year.  Labour won the October 1974 election with a slim overall majority.  They held power until May 1979.

In theory, even if Labour is the largest party in a hung Parliament, they could continue in Government so long as they are not too far short of an overall majority.  It is hard to say what the “tipping” point would be here. Labour could probably just about continue in power 20 short of an overall majority with the sort of deal that I have suggested. Labour would be in this position with a uniform swing against them of about 2.7%. The likelihood?

In their worst opinion poll this year (November 15), the Conservative lead was only 6%.  (Con 37%, Lab 31%, L.Dem 17%) Even on those figures, the Conservatives would still (just) be the largest party in Parliament. 

The bookies will not take your bet on David Cameron becoming Prime Minister.  However, the events of 1974 demonstrate how difficult it is for the party in power to govern efficiently and securely without a sufficient number of MPs.  It also is a reminder to all of us in the Conservative Party and the UUP that the votes cast for the Northern Ireland Parliamentary seats will play a crucial part in determining the strength of the next UK Government.

Robinson’s blackmail and bribery argument

Recent national opinion polls have suggested a narrowing of the Conservative lead to the point where a hung parliament is more likely than it seemed to be just over a month ago.   

Such a poll was published yesterday in The Times.   Whilst we can not rule out the possibility of a hung Parliament, I am personally confident that the Conservatives will win an overall majority, particularly because of the successful campaigning in the Marginal constituencies.

However, let us suppose for argument’s sake that there was a hung Parliament.  Who would the Conservatives rather have as minor parties?

Consider the worst case scenario.  Let us suppose that by a strange co-incidence, the DUP holds the balance of power.   Does it mean they would blackmail the Government like the late Harold McCusker nearly did when he persuaded the Labour Government to grant a gas pipeline to Northern Ireland prior to the vote of no confidence in 1979?

The DUP will try to persuade the Northern Ireland electorate that is the case.  At the time of the vote on the 42 day bill, it was alleged that the Gordon Brown bribed the DUP with a financial package.  Brown denied that was the case.  So did DUP MPs, initially.  Later, at about the time that the Conservatives and UUP announced their new partnership, Peter Robinson boasted that he did extract something from Gordon Brown.  Here is what he is supposed to have said on New Years Eve 2008

“I think we have seen since then that if you act responsibly with government, government in turn will act responsibly with you.”

“Would we have got the £900 million if we had been irresponsible in the way that we behaved at Westminster?”

So Peter Robinson has been exposed as a liar.  So also has Gordon Brown for that matter.  Robinson certainly can not be relied upon to put the National interest before self-interest nor will he keep confidences if it does not suit him.  But how powerful will his argument really be? 

In reality, a Conservative Government is unlikely give special priority to a political party in the Assembly.  The Conservatives in power should and will put the National interest first.  Having a much more direct political interest in Northern Ireland will definitely help. 

Now that question again.  If the Conservatives had a choice between the election of a DUP MP and a Sinn Fein MP, who would they rather have?

It may shock some Unionists to know that if there was a hung parliament, the Conservatives would rather have a Sinn Fein MP.  The latter will never vote against the Government.

Could a change to the Act of Settlement be a threat to Orangism?

The Times today reports that Gordon Brown is pushing Commonwealth leaders to change the law so that a Royal can marry a Roman Catholic without losing the right to succeed to the throne.

When this issue was discussed on this Blog earlier this year, the only opposition of note came from Jeffrey Donaldson.  He argued that a Roman Catholic spouse of a monarch would have a conflict of loyalty between Rome and the Crown.  

The argument was utterly non-sensical but Donaldson’s intervention left many observers with the suspicion that the real reason for opposing the proposed change to the constitution was that it would cause a structural weakness to one of the pillars of Orangism – the glorification of the Battle of the Boyne which ensured that a Catholic would never again become a British Monarch.  

If the law is passed, to what extent would the Orange Order be under pressure to change its own rules?  Could such a law change perhaps inspire a rule change to allow a Catholic to be married to an Orangeman? 

Maybe an Orangeman would like to answer that one.

Very soon, Sir Reg.’s thinking time in the shower might not be enough

If you are a businessman or just somebody who works very hard who is taking his holiday break, you are likely to spend the first few days getting over your tiredness. 

During the next phase of your holiday, you feel fantastic and feel on a high.  It is in that second phase that your mind could look back on your work or business.  You might identify the things you could do better.  You might think of ways of being more productive.   You might think about new ways of marketing the business or the interests of your employers.  Ideas might come to you which would probably not have done when you were working hard keeping the wheels of the business or workplace turning.  Is that you?

The limitations of mental endurance apply to politicians just as they do to everybody who works hard.  The leader of a political party that has just won a General Election, after being in Opposition, will have found time to plan strategically for their term in Government.  Yes, the Leader of the opposition works very hard but he or she has more time on his hands than the Prime Minister to plan strategically about future of his Country. 

Gordon Brown has to work exceptionally hard just to cover his administrative duties as Prime Minister.  The summer is really the only time that the Prime Minister has to have a proper break and do some creative thinking.  I am not suggesting that Gordon Brown would be doing any creative thinking.  It is very difficult when the policy theme which glided your political faction into power has run out of steam and I suggest that the New Labour ideal has indeed run out of steam. 

Coming back to the main point, I have been concerned for some time about the position of Sir Reg Empey.  Sir Reg. has done a wonderful job steering his party towards accepting the alliance with the Conservative Party.  He has also done a sterling job as a Minister in charge of Employment and Learning. 

There is still much work for Sir Reg to do as party leader.  When the General Election is over, his leadership will be needed, as never before.  He will have two big strands of planning to contend with.  The first is to plan strategically for administration following the next assembly elections.  The second is to negotiate an extension of the Alliance with the Conservatives and the policies which will shape the agenda of the next Assembly administration.  By the time that the next election is over, the Conservatives will be in power.  In a sense, the Conservatives will depend upon the UUP to lead the creative planning for the next assembly.

A lot of time is going to be taken up with all of these matters.  Furthermore, Peter Robinson and Martin McGuiness could call the Assembly Elections before the full four year term has expired.  With that in mind, I would like to see Sir Reg. stepping down from the Ministry of Employment and Learning and appointing another UUP MLA to the post.  Who should be appointed?  That is, of course another matter.

Very soon, Sir Reg.’s thinking time in the shower might not be enough.

Election date dilemma for Labour?

I have not been able to keep up regular blogging over the last few days owing to a combination of business commitments and a breakdown of my IT system at home, which is being repaired. 

I expect to be able to resume “normal service” tomorrow or on Wednesday at the latest.

Meanwhile, I would like to draw attention to an article published today in the Times by its former editor, William Rees-Mogg.  He has covered more or less the same ground that I did in last week’s post, albeit with some variation, in relation to the connection between the Irish rerendum on the Lisbon Treaty and the timing of the next General Election.  Interestingly, he reaches a slightly different conclusion, not having discussed the problems that the Conservatives may have with UKIP and euro-scepticism, if the Treaty is ratified before a referendum.

Gordon Brown sees the Leprechauns dashing to the end of the rainbow

Ever since David Cameron became the leader of the Conservative Party, I have hardly had any cause to criticise him for the way he and his team have played their political cards.  Indeed, some of their political footwork has been breathtaking.  

However, there is one particular political “hot potato” which will give the jitters to many conservatives.  It is ‘What to do about the Lisbon Treaty if it is ratified before the Conservatives come to power?’

The Conservatives have promised that they will provide the answer to that question in their general election manifesto.  However, they may not be able to ‘hold their cards to their chest’ until then.  Already, there have been statements from the Conservative camp that they are likely to take a pragmatic approach, as reported today in the Times.   In other words, they intend to accept ratification if it happens and do nothing to try and untangle it.  I would not question the practical wisdom of this approach in terms of the National Interest.  My biggest worry is that the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party could erupt over it. 

There are also political ramifications in terms of the forthcoming General Election.  For one thing, it gives Gordon Brown a motive for delaying the election until 2010.   Labour will remember that the Conservative Party under John Major tore itself apart over Europe.  Nothing would please them more than to see a revival of discord within conservative ranks.  In making that calculation, he would be banking on the Irish to accept the Treaty.   Nothing would please Labour more than to see a revival of internal Conservative division.

In making that calculation, Gordon Brown will be reliant upon the Irish to deliver a “yes” vote in the referendum this Autumn.   One can imagine headlines such as “the Irish give Gordon a lifeline” or something similar. 

Gordon Brown will, of course, have other calculations to make in determining the date of the next general election.  Waiting until next year does have its dangers.  During the winter months following Christmas, there are more likely to be disruptive strikes.  VAT will also go back to 17.5% at the beginning of January with a consequential detriment to Britain’s retail sector.   Also, once proper structures are in place to deal with MP’s expenses, there will be very strong independent arguments for a General Election in the National interest.   The economic news leading into the Autumn will probably show that the recession has technically ended.  During the Autumn, at least, Brown might be able to point to better times ahead.  

It is my belief that but for the prospect of an Irish referendum ratifying Lisbon, most Labour supporters would want Brown would go for an October poll as the their best possible damage limitation exercise.   My hunch is that Gordon Brown will see the Leprechauns dashing to the end of the rainbow.  Never will affairs in Ireland have proved so pivotal to the determination of Britain’s rulers since the Battle of the Boyne.