Nigel Farage should be barred from any General Election TV debate, and here’s why

As I start, I’m aware of the accusations that will inevitably be levelled at me; sour grapes, because UKIP have overtaken the ‘toast’ Lib Dems in the opinion polls. I confess that the polls do not make for comfortable reading as it stands, but at the heart of this debate is a rational, pragmatic answer. Where do we draw a line? Sooner rather than later the issue of another round of TV election debates will arise, no doubt focusing on the potential no-show of David Cameron and the Conservative Party. However, what will also make headlines is UKIP’s demand for inclusion, with Nigel Farage threatening court action if his party are excluded. He should not be allowed a podium in the debates, and here’s why.

With reference to Alex Salmond and the SNP’s exclusion from the debates in 2010, Farage commented “he only contested 60 seats, we’re intending to contest 630 or 640. It would be expensive to go to court but I would not preclude it”. However, if he is to use this logic as a reason for inclusion, then the Monster Raving Loony Party could try and muster together enough money to contest as many seats, and therefore merit a TV debate podium. Furthermore, if UKIP are to have a podium with no representatives in parliament, then what’s to stop the Green Party from making similar demands with their one MP? Should George Galloway and the Respect Party have a role in the debate too due to their by-election success in Bradford? If we are to base it on the fact that UKIP have 11 MEPs, then the BNP could demand representation with their single MEP. Farage may claim that UKIP are the new third party in British politics, but this has not yet been borne out in parliamentary representation.

Farage may well point to the poll figures as justification, but this is hardly the most credible territory. The Liberal Democrats were in second place in many opinion polls for much of the 2010 Election campaign, before gaining 23% of the vote on Election day; a 1% vote share increase from 2005. The SDP-Liberal Alliance had polling figures of around 50% prior to the Falklands War in the early 1980s, with Mrs Thatcher’s Conservatives in third place. The main parties could only dream of polling that sort of figure now, and even if UKIP were to raise above the giddy heights of 20% in the polls (which they rarely have), is Farage really going to go to the BBC and present as evidence a series of ‘reliable’ and not so reliable opinion polling?

David Cameron remains sceptical of another TV debate even with Farage out of the picture, so it would be a great shame if this democratic and engaging process was to be halted for any reason, whether exacerbated by Farage’s presence or not. I’ve said ‘trust the people’ in this blog before, and I meant it. If TV debate were to occur for the European Elections in 2014, I would have no qualms with UKIP having a podium. With 13 seats won at the 2009 European Elections, UKIP had the joint highest number of MEPs (with Labour), and so would have representative legitimacy. However, the issue is over the UK and the 2015 General Election, and as it stands UKIP have no MPs. As I have mentioned numerous times in the past, Proportional Representation would reinvigorate Elections and include more parties in the parliamentary process; if the likes of UKIP and the Greens were to receive a higher share of parliamentary seats as a consequence, then perhaps the TV debate argument would take a new shape. However, PR for General Elections is a long way off yet.

It is difficult to set a parameter or entry requirement for TV debates. If based on the number of seats, then what should the number be? Should it be based on a percentage of seats? There is no straightforward or consensual answer, but as it stands the Lib Dems are a clear third in terms of seats won in 2010 (57 seats); the closest party after that is the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland with 8 seats. The Lib Dems could well lose many seats in 2015, but even if they were to fall to around 20 MPs, the best UKIP can hope for in 2015 is around 5 MPs, under a disenfranchising electoral system. Farage may have more support than for TV debate representation, but we cannot base our decision making on 2015 by preempting electoral results.

With a strong surge in support, it is understandable for Farage to demand a stronger voice, and if he is to raise concerns about First Past the Post (which he labelled “a disaster” for UKIP), then I can more than sympathise. A large increase in UKIP’s vote share and no MPs to show for it in 2015 may well put electoral reform back on the agenda (Farage was part of the ‘Yes to AV’ campaign in 2011), but with 0 MPs at present, Farage’s demands for a TV debate podium aren’t built on solid ground.

Sarah Teather’s exit would have carried more credence had she practiced what she preached

With Party Conference season looming, Sarah Teather has perhaps ensured that yet another Liberal Democrat Conference will convene with controversy hanging over its shoulders, having resigned over “some aspects of government policy”. Refusing to pull any punches, she “no longer feels that Nick Clegg’s party fights sufficiently for social justice and liberal values on immigration…something did break for me that was never, ever repaired”. I’m not doubting that she has been in turmoil over the decision, nor that she has some honest intentions. However, when viewing her voting record, perhaps this ‘noble’ stance should be scrutinised more.

Credit where credit is due; she did vote against the recent benefits cap, and she also voted against military action in Syria. Furthermore, she overturned a Labor majority of over 13,000 in Brent East in 2003, and as a minister in the coalition she played a role in ending the detention of children for immigration purposes. However, this blog article isn’t about the merits of Ms Teather’s abilities. Once again, I’ve no doubt that she voted on many unpopular things with a heavy heart, but the wording of her resignation published in The Observer hints all too much of a holier than thou attitude. She voted for the increase in tuition fees, along with the increase in VAT to 20%. Although I’m not a fan of Zac Goldsmith, his tweet sums up the situation quite well; “Sarah Teather is desperately angry about all those policies she voted for. The alternative of course was not voting for them”. Andrew George would have been a far better candidate for resignation; he has voted against the coalition more than any other Lib Dem MP. In some ways she is doing the party a favour by not stepping down immediately a la Louise Mensch, which would have left the Lib Dems with the task of a tough by-election, along with the prospect of an open goal for the Labour Party. However, in choosing to time her resignation not long before the Lib Dem Conference, she is making a slight mockery of the “loyalty and friendship” that she tried to balance with colleagues.

Teather is of course right to highlight the Conservative’s pathetic and offensive “go home” van messages to illegal immigrants, but in choosing to resign she has perhaps lost the capacity to stay in the camp and fight against it; in stepping down at the 2015 election, she is essentially a lame duck MP. Whilst Labour are busy battling trade union reform, the Lib Dems perhaps could have benefited slightly from an upturn in economic fortunes, whilst tempering any potential Conservative triumphalism. Now Clegg is presented with a dilemma of either addressing Teather’s resignation head on at the Conference and defending the party, or shrugging it off and keeping his thoughts on the matter under wraps. However, whether the accusation that the party “no longer…fights sufficiently for social justice” is from Teather or the general public, Clegg has to answer the question head on. Raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 and initiating a multi-billion pound pupil premium for the poorest primary school students are very good starting points, along with shared parental leave for 2015. However, it is vital that Clegg pursues the proposals for raising the threshold to around £12,500 (taking everyone on the minimum wage out of income tax), a radical plan which could outflank Labour on social justice whilst at the same time proving to be a sensible option not open to a “lurch to the left” ridicule from the Conservatives. It’s a shame that Teather was not up to the fight of defending these proud achievements as well as questioning unpopular government policies.

Sarah Teather is a well-known Lib Dem MP, and it is a blow to the party. Her exit can now be easily pounced upon by the Opposition; cue Ed Miliband in his Conference speech declaring “the Liberal Democrats no longer fight for social justice and liberal values; Sarah Teather’s words, not mine!” However, her questionable voting record should take some of the sting out of the situation, and the resignation of a more high profile Lib Dem such as Vince Cable would have been a far more calamitous move. The Liberal Democrats need to move on from this and take the resignation as motivation to prove Ms Teather wrong. Whilst championing their achievements, they need to highlight popular policies such as the Mansion Tax which would be implemented but for the Conservatives, suggesting both a reason to vote for the Lib Dems and a reason not to vote for the Tories. As for Sarah Teather, it seems she is culpable for voting for the supposed policies which she now condemns. She has fallen on her sword, but it is a double-edged sword.

Yes to votes at 16, but more needs to be done

Introducing votes at 16 has been Liberal Democrat policy for a while, with the baton now picked up by the Labour Party. In the past, I’ve never had a passionate belief in the idea, but viewed it as something not worth opposing. However, whilst still viewing many other aspects as priorities, I believe that allowing 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote is sensible, fair and pragmatic. Nevertheless, this isn’t enough on its own.

I do not speak for current 16 and 17 year olds when I say this (and indeed people my age), but as I have alluded to in the past, it was studying history that engaged my interest in politics. My interest was very likely to have had roots in studying Stalin’s Russia in Year 9 (and then Year 12), with a strong sense of injustice exaggerated by studying the American West and the ‘manifest destiny’ at GCSE level, and from a literary point of view I found George Orwell’s novel ‘Animal Farm’ immensely compelling. American politics and history at A-Level (via Civil Rights and the Great Depression/New Deal) completed and accelerated my path to politics, having had zero interest in the past. With this list, my intent is not to bore you or be autobiographical; it is to display a (to a degree) complex alternative to rousing interest in politics, and it highlights the immense dearth of usefulness in subjects such as ‘General Studies’. The subjects and literature listed above are not everyday shopping lists for teachers eager to get students interested in politics, nor are they guarantees for political participation.

Sadiq Khan, Labour’s shadow justice secretary, has noted that “the evidence we have is that if you vote the first time you are entitled to, you will carry on doing so through your life”. However, it is vital how we get people to vote for the first time (and indeed continue to vote), whether they are in the 16-17 age bracket or above. From personal experience General Studies, however well intentioned, did not provide a coherent or adequate framework for informing people on politics, and was too broad (hence the title ‘General’) to be coherent on anything else. Although this is my view, ask any current or former sixth form student about General Studies, and you’ll find a strong and negative consensus. Even with the vote at 18 as it currently is, some form of political awareness at school needs to be implemented, and competently.

A solution isn’t straightforward, but the proposals don’t have to be rocket science. Why not have a period for politics, starting with information on the political system and parties, once every four weeks (preferably two weeks) starting in Year 9 or 10? These could easily be incorporated into PSE lessons or equivalents, and at a compulsory stage of education could gradually start to interest young students. These political lessons could then be superseded by an AS/A2 in the subject at A-Level (with or without votes at 16). It’s a few years since I was in compulsory education, so I could be preaching to the converted, but why not have more British political history in history lessons, too? The school I attended in Matlock was brilliant for me, and its history department excellent, but I was a little envious when a friend of mine at University said that they had studied David Lloyd George. Furthermore, I am aware that Politics is an option at A-Level for some schools; a good move, and another one that makes me jealous.

For those who say that 16 and 17 year olds are too immature to vote, I say trust the people. In a previous blog post on engaging people in politics I cover the issue in a bit more depth, but Khan’s quote sums it up well; “There are more things that 16-17-year-olds can do – work, pay national insurance and tax, have sexual relationships, get married and enter civil partnerships and join the armed forces.” As someone who was a 16/17 year old in the relatively recent past, I know that this age demographic is more than capable at making important decisions, but a newly enfranchised group has to go in tandem with far more political awareness.

With two of the three major parties containing manifesto commitments to votes at 16, there’s a strong likelihood of it being in place for the 2020 General Election. It’s not a priority in the grand scheme of things, but it’s something that can be legislated for with relative ease, be it a free vote or a cross-party parliamentary consensus. If 2020 is the beginning of votes for 16 and 17 year olds, that means potential voters for that election are currently 9 and 10 years old. This gives us time to introduce measures to educate young people effectively and coherently. Allowing them to vote is a matter of principle. Giving them adequate political education is a matter of fairness.

Is a post-war consensus revival too idealistic?

Labour’s repetitive mantra was/is that the Coalition is cutting “too far, too fast”. Now, with green shoots of recovery, the riposte from Grant Shapps and co. is that Labour are “talking down the economy”. Forgive me for sitting on the fence, but both approaches are reasonable. Growth is still nothing to shout home about, nor is an unemployment rate of 7.8%. However, Labour are yet to praise such measures as increasing the income tax threshold to £10,000, and I had clamoured for Barack Obama’s re-election with similar unemployment statistics in the US. However, the point of my post this time is that further down the road, even with a recovery, will we be ambitious enough with unemployment?

My investigation has found a fascinating link covering historical unemployment from 1881-1995 (see references; first link), which shows that unemployment hasn’t averaged below 4.2% since 1975, with an average of 5.8% the lowest rate in the Thatcher period, ironically at the end of her tenure in 1990. Even in the New Labour boom years (see second link in references for statistics), the lowest unemployment rate was around 4.8% in 2005. These may not sound like significant figures, and politicians (especially of a conservative nature) will probably tell you that seeking a rate of around 5% is ideal. However, 5% of the workforce unemployed would equate to around 1.6 million people, a huge figure even with increasing population figures, and that general statistic does not take into account the more deprived areas where unemployment is more endemic. With this in mind, is it possible (or will it ever be possible) to return to levels of unemployment below 3%?

It’s time for me to put my New Deal hat on once again. My love and admiration of FDR has been expressed numerous times, but I cannot fail to praise his work and the work of the post-war consensus. One of my favourite Prime Ministers of all time is Clement Attlee. Some would say this is odd coming from a Liberal Democrat. However, he was arguably influenced far more by Keynes and Beveridge (both Liberals) than Marx and Engels. Whilst no doubt influenced by ideology, his nationalisation of key industries could be argued as a pragmatic response to failing workplaces rather than left wing zeal. Furthermore, “building a New Jerusalem” is infinitely more inspiring than “if it’s not hurting, it’s not working”. Added to this, there were incredible achievements in terms of unemployment during the post-war consensus period, overseen by successive Labour and Conservative governments; the averages of 1.6% in 1950, 1.2% in 1955 and even the comparatively high rate of 3.8% in in 1972 would be unheard of today. Can’t we clamour for these goals again?

The immediate answer is an emphatic no. The old-school method would not be electorally viable, namely nationalisation. Could you imagine the reaction to Ed Miliband in PMQs? “In response to the Prime Minister’s accusation that the Labour Party are policy-lite, we have committed in our next manifesto a promise to renationalise all of the utilities and industries which were privatised under the last Conservative government”. ‘Red Ed’ would be hounded from all sides. Even the ‘One Nation’ Tory approach of the post-war consensus era merely maintained nationalised industries rather than nationalising other ones. With getting the deficit down the Coalition’s top priority, a Labour Party desperate for economic credibility wouldn’t possibly countenance anything that could be construed as a return to the Michael Foot era. Added to this, with Miliband on the fence about whether to commit to permanently restoring the 50p tax rate in 2015, can you imagine him saying “we’ll go further than that; we want the top rate of tax at 83%”?

The Party closest to advocacy of a return to the consensus era (with the exception of the Socialist Workers Party and other similarly affiliated groups) is the Green Party, who in their 2010 manifesto called for a raise in taxation “from 36 percent of GDP in 2009-10 to around 45 percent in 2013” and to “introduce the new higher rate of income tax at 50% for incomes above £100,000” rather than £150,000. Further, the 2010 manifesto wished to “abolish prescription charges, reintroduce free eye tests and NHS dental treatment for all, and ensure NHS chiropody is widely available”; almost a 62 year response to the introduction of prescription charges. The Greens, who have 1 MP in Caroline Lucas, also called for rail renationalisation. Despite these policies, the Greens did not capitalise on Labour’s unpopularity in their last years of their administration, nor did they fully benefit from the collapse in Lib Dem support in 2010. The simple truth of the matter is that, despite a disenfranchising voting system, not enough people in the country voted for a return to consensus politics in 2010, whatever dubious opinion polling may indicate the contrary.

The post-war consensus period was a truly admirable period, and a beacon of increased social mobility. However, that doesn’t mean that it was perfect, nor that Mrs Thatcher was wrong to reverse parts (I stress ‘parts’) of it. The top rate of tax shouldn’t go any higher than 50%; whatever the honest and egalitarian intentions, the top rate of 83% when Mrs Thatcher came to power was, apart from being ludicrously high, incredibly ineffective and piecemeal. Furthermore, the ‘Winter of Discontent’ showed that the trade unions did need reforming, and allowing people to buy their own council homes was a good thing (although not if it would be at the detriment of building new social housing, or affect those who couldn’t afford to buy them). In this sense, certain consensus policies wouldn’t be electorally viable now, but with good reason.

What to propose? Tony Benn would tell me that ‘the movement’ is needed. However, I personally disagree. Trade union cooperation with Government is always welcome, but with my Mum and sister recently threatened as Teaching Assistants with single status, has ‘the movement’ helped them? Progressive policies are needed. A living wage would harness the socially-democratic conscience of the post-war era, but this would be ideal in conjunction with the Lib Dem plans to raise the income tax threshold to around £12,500, exempting minimum wage earners from income tax altogether. This shows that a radically left-wing party isn’t necessarily needed to achieve these aims. However, more needs to be done. It doesn’t have to be a radical thing to propose rail renationalisation in the face of ever escalating inefficiency and unaffordable rail fares (and considering a near profitable publicly owned company was disastrously privatised under John Major); indeed even Peter Hitchens supports it. However, more needs to be done. Rather than accepting 5% as a good benchmark of unemployment, public works schemes for the long term unemployed and those in the 16-25 youth unemployment bracket would not only drastically reduce unemployment, but could boost growth, especially as there is a dearth of affordable housing being built. I’m all for free trade, but we need to export more by boosting manufacturing and investment in Britain.

Whilst Keynes would argue for deficit spending, the current political narrative strongly goes against it. However, Vince Cable has already suggested in the Cabinet that some deficit spending be made for capital investment projects, plus certain progressive tax measures could boost employment projects; the Mansion Tax on households worth over £2 million would be a great start, not to mention the Tobin Tax (the ‘Robin Hood tax’ is a misleading and radically left wing title for what is a pragmatic and sensible taxation policy on risk taking). However, with the current largely centre-right Thatcherite consensus, getting such policies through are difficult, plus social democracy was a far easier model to implement in post-war Britain than the current globalised age.

A revival of the post-war consensus is too idealistic. However, there should be (and sometimes there is) a place for idealism in politics. The Thatcherite/classically liberal model was once considered archaic and unfashionable, and an unlikely return to consensus politics cannot be ruled out in the future. Pragmatism is sometimes needed, but not to the ‘Third Way’ fence sitting extent, where rhetoric often blurred the lines; in the end, ‘Thatcherism with a human face’ was adopted rather than a brave renewal of social democracy. The post-war consensus should not be renewed per se, but reformed parts of it should. We don’t need to (and shouldn’t) propose the top rate of tax exceeding 50%, nor does radically increased spending have to be the norm again in tandem with widespread nationalisation. However, it’s not radically left wing to push for unemployment to drop below 3%, nor is it to propose pragmatic nationalisation or part-nationalisation when affordable and/or where industries have patently failed to produce for the public over time (such as the railways). Furthermore, in terms of building a fairer society, it makes far more sense to cut taxation at the bottom end of the scale rather than to increase spending on certain benefits.

The spirit of the post-war consensus should be emulated, not its nuts and bolts. The methods and composition need changing, but not the overall goal. It is the Centre-Left’s (not the radical Left’s) mission to propose social democratic renewal in an affordable, progressive and effective way, and with boldness. Could a post-2010 Lib/Lab Coalition achieve it? Social democracy needs a clear mission. In terms of political parties, the Conservatives have a clear mission; they want to prove their supposed economically competent credentials, and restore their previous hegemony. The Liberal Democrats have a clear mission; to achieve a more liberal and fair society, and to prove that Coalitions can work. As for Labour? “We oppose the cuts being made, but are not promising to reverse any of them” is a blurred message to say the least. The former bastions of social democracy need to tell people what they stand for, and the Centre-Left needs to invoke Keynes as much as Attlee.

Unemployment links:

file:///home/chronos/user/Downloads/unemploymentbackto1881_tcm77-267536%20(1).pdf

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate

Of ‘the big four’, the Lib Dems arguably have the least to lose

The ever-changing fortunes of political parties are forever magnified, so much so that even those who are indifferent to politics have some sort of awareness towards the current state of things; the Tories are losing it over Europe, UKIP are the new third party, Miliband’s leadership abilities are questionable, and so on. This consensus has altered slightly in recent weeks due in part to subtle hints of economic recovery; Labour’s imposing poll lead has shortened considerably, giving the Conservatives new hope. However, the Liberal Democrats have gone relatively unnoticed under the political microscope, and as the focus on the 2015 General Election is forever debated, the Lib Dems arguably have the least to lose.

There should be no illusions or complacency; the Liberal Democrats are still unpopular with significant swathes of people, and this lack of media publicity does not necessarily equate to newfound popularity. However, there is still optimism and fighting talk within Party ranks, and this lack of publicity is beneficial to a degree. The Eastleigh by-election, triggered after the resignation of the disgraced Chris Huhne, should have been yet another humiliating defeat for the Lib Dems, an indication of a wipeout in 2015. Instead, whilst the media focused on Conservative woes and the surge of UKIP, the Lib Dems hung onto Eastleigh through vigorous local campaigning and sheer bloody mindedness. UKIP claimed the headlines after finishing second, whilst the ‘parrot squawked’ and was left content with a crucial victory.

Eastleigh not only represented an against the odds victory (or ‘bouncebackability’, to quote Soccer AM), but it highlighted the escalating pressures of the other parties. Nigel Farage has declared that UKIP are no longer a protest party, but a serious political voice; that at the very least has to translate into seats in Parliament in 2015 for that to hold true. Under FPTP, that is very unlikely. Labour came fourth in (admittedly) an unwinnable seat, but their mission to win in the South of England (important for an overall majority) looks daunting. The Conservatives have division within their own ranks, and now a split on the Right with UKIP. The Liberal Democrats have a big mission too; to stem the predicted loss of seats in ‘57 by-elections’. This will be immensely difficult, but Eastleigh showed that it can be achieved, and the considerably tougher tasks of the other three parties should in turn benefit the Lib Dems.

If we are to take Farage by his word and consider UKIP as a serious political party, then they are falling into traps already. UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom’s “Bongo Bongo Land” comments have drawn offence and derision, but they are not the first comments of disrepute to erupt from UKP ranks; there are only so many times that the Party can apologise and insist the such bile is unrepresentative of UKIP policies as a whole before they essentially taken on a Sarah Palin demeanour, and look what has happened to her political career since. Can UKIP be taken seriously? The Coalition has already pledged to have referendum on the EU; a poor parliamentary performance in 2015 after so much hype followed by the EU ‘No’ campaign losing in 2017 could banish them to obscurity a la the BNP.

Labour have a great chance to win an overall majority after one term in Opposition for the first time in their history, which is hyperbolic enough. However, the aforementioned poll lead has slipped, and people are still unsure of what the Party stands for. After initial promise, Ed Miliband’s ‘One Nation’ rhetoric hasn’t ignited an unstoppable charge towards Number 10, and the Party hasn’t fully capitalised on an unpopular Coalition. Tribal and opportunistic opposition motions may help the Labour Party in the short term, but Ed Miliband won’t become Prime Minister by just saying “I’m not David Cameron or Nick Clegg”. Time is relatively on their side, but we are well past the halfway point of this Parliament. Miliband has to deal with these pressures and pressure within his own Party; the trade unions. If his proposed reforms succeed, then his leadership will be emboldened. Otherwise, he could be doomed to defeat.

David Cameron will almost certainly go in 2015 if the Conservatives do not win. He has still not been forgiven by his rebellious backbenchers for not winning a majority in 2010, and the popularity of UKIP has only convinced them even more that Cameron has abandoned ‘true Conservative’ values. The vote on the Right will no doubt be split; he has to hope that he can ‘do a Harry Truman’ (see the 1948 US Presidential Election), otherwise Farage’s Party may well deprive him of seats without gaining any themselves. History may not be kind to Cameron if the likely 2015 scenario succeeds; he could well be remembered as the new Ted Heath.

Contrary to many thoughts, the country has a lot to gain from a strong Lib Dem showing; a proposed £12,500 tax free threshold post-2015 is a good start. This plan would lift everyone earning the minimum wage out of income tax altogether, an ambitious and progressive plan building upon the already noble quest of a £10,000 tax free-threshold. If a proposed Coalition with Labour works, a £2 million Mansion Tax would be inevitable; another progressive move and one that effectively taxes expensive property without the prospect of tax avoidance. A Coalition with Labour would be far from harmonious, and I cannot imagine Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister to Ed Miliband. Nevertheless, Ed Balls has said that he “could work with Vince Cable”, a former SDP member. In the unlikely event of Coalition Mark 2, Lib Dems could be a break on the Tories again, halting unfair policies as they have done in this Coalition, such as an Inheritance Tax cut, letting schools be run for profit and firing staff at will.

The Liberal Democrats still have a considerable task to halt low poll numbers, and to convince sceptics to vote (or vote again) for them. However, the pressures of Labour, the Conservatives and UKIP appear far greater, and their position in the headlights of media scrutiny only adds to that. Nick Clegg emerged after the first 2010 Election Leader’s Debate as a man on the rise after someone who had nothing to lose. As a Party with nothing to lose, they can emerge from the sidelines again, with the other three political parties paying the price in some way.

Blair and Cameron; what's the difference?

Tony Blair and David Cameron only faced each other for two years (2005-2007) as leaders of their respective parties, and the Labour and Conservative ranks were just as tribal then as they are now. Nevertheless, there’s little to choose ideologically between the two individuals.

David Cameron proclaimed himself as the “heir to Blair”, and refers to the former Prime Minister as “the master”. These aren't just empty platitudes; Cameron has been trying his very best to emulate Blair. Just as Blair sought to modernise the Labour Party upon his election as leader in 1994, Cameron pledged in 2005 to move the Conservatives closer to the centre ground and detoxify his party. Cameron hasn't quite had a symbolic ‘Clause IV’ moment, but his initial “hug a hoody” platform was an attempt to end “the nasty party” image. As Blair grappled with the trade union influence within the Labour Party, Cameron tried to tackle similar vested interests by saying that the Conservatives should “stop banging on about Europe”, although he has failed that test miserably. Furthermore, in order to try and shed left wing and right wing stereotypes in their party, both signalled departures, to a degree, from praising their predecessors. Blair notes “I specifically went out of my way to pay tribute in my own political heritage to Lloyd George, Keynes and Beveridge” as opposed to historical praise for the likes of Clement Attlee, whilst Cameron gave his best fence-sitting answer with “I’m certainly a big fan of Thatcher, but I don’t know if that makes me a Thatcherite”. You could be forgiven for almost thinking that they were in the wrong parties; Blair said of Thatcher that she was “undoubtedly a great prime minister” and “we needed the reforms of the Thatcher era”.

It shouldn't be such a surprise that the two are so similar. New Labour pledged to continue Thatcherism but “with a human face”, which in turn Cameron has had no such problem in following, albeit as a so-called “liberal Conservative”. However, it is not just symbolisms and metaphors that link the two men. For Cameron’s NHS reforms, think Blair’s 2006 NHS Act. For Theresa May’s attempts at increased surveillance, think “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. Cameron’s gay marriage policy is a natural progression from Blair’s introduction of civil partnerships. In Tony Blair’s own words in his autobiography, he could easily be describing Coalition policy; “In my view we should have taken a New Labour way out of the economic crisis: kept direct tax rates competitive, had a gradual rise in VAT and other indirect taxes to close the deficit, and used the crisis to push further and faster on reform”. Add to this that under Blair’s premiership the top rate of tax never hovered above 40%; he would have approved of Cameron and Osborne’s decision to reduce the current top rate from 50% to 45%. The Conservative Party approved of the Iraq War (with David Cameron as an MP at the time), and on education Blair notes approvingly “David Cameron’s government continues my commitment to academies”. In the few areas where they differ, it is relatively piecemeal, such as with ID cards. Cameron is considerably more eurosceptic than pro-european Blair, but then again there are eurosceptic MPs within the Labour Party.

I may be stating the obvious, and few of the points above are stark revelations, but with this commentary on ideological pairings, dangerous assumptions can emerge. Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens is very likely to agree with me when it comes to placing Blair and Cameron in the same boat. However, his (and other figures on the right wing) rather misleading and baffling thesis is that they are both a part of a left wing social democratic conglomerate. This inevitably leads to attacks from left and right, of which both individuals have suffered. For those, like Hitchens, who curiously believe that Blair and Cameron are part of a social-democratic consensus, I will use a quote from Mrs Thatcher on what she thought her biggest achievement was; “New Labour”. Whether their parties liked it or not, Blair and Cameron pitched their tents on the centre-right end of the political spectrum, meeting there as Labour moved rightwards and the Conservatives moved slightly leftwards. Both have tried to present their respective governments as centrists, and coincidentally both were open to Coalitions with the Liberal Democrats to help achieve this goal. The Lib Dems in Coalition enable Cameron to stifle his right wing backbenchers to a degree, whilst Blair contemplated a Coalition with the Lib Dems even after his 1997 landslide, saying “from the off, I wanted to have them in the big tent”.

The final similarity is the Labour and Conservative Party’s (on the whole) desire to banish Blair and Cameron. Ed Miliband proclaimed “New Labour is dead”, and many Party members and activists were fed up with what they perceived (correctly, in my view) to be a rightwards drift from Blair, and similarly on the other end of the spectrum there are many backbench Tory MPs and members who are angry that Cameron is not doing enough to implement “true conservative values”. Despite this, they do still have admirers. There are still Blairite fans in the media such as Independent writer John Rentoul and Daily Telegraph contributor Dan Hodges, whilst Cameron at least still has the support of his cabinet. Whatever the splits, Blair still has a New Labour backing amongst certain MPs, and Cameron desperately still wants to emulate him and achieve a landslide victory. Blair may still be a heavily divisive figure in politics, but his election-winning mystique is such that not only is Cameron an advocate, but so too, secretly, is Ed Miliband.

The two wings of the Liberal Democrats; which will win in 2015?

The 2010 General Election resulted in what was a painful but necessary decision for the Liberal Democrats to join the Conservatives in a Coalition. Much media talk is made of the tension between the Blairites and Brownites (or are they now Milibandites?) in the Labour Party, and the detoxifiers and Tea-Party tendencies in the Tory ranks, yet these tensions exist in the Lib Dems, too. The Beveridge group on the centre-left wing of the Party is often at odds with the Orange Book side, who are more individualist and economically liberal by inclination. Despite this, the Lib Dems often present a united front, and when it comes to their flagship policies and the decision to enter a Coalition, they are near-unanimous in agreement. Nevertheless, the 2015 Election and subsequent consequences may decide which direction the Party heads in; which wing will emerge victorious?

Broadly speaking, the Party seems to be inclined towards the Beveridge group at a membership level, yet in terms of its leadership is very much an Orange Book setup. Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg penned “Europe-a Liberal future”, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Davey contributed “Liberalism and localism”, Business Secretary (and until 2010 Deputy Leader) Vince Cable has written “Liberal economics and social justice”, whilst former Chief Secretary to the Treasury and current Education minister David Laws wrote “Reclaiming Liberalism: a liberal agenda for the Liberal Democrats”. Pensions minister Steve Webb is also a contributor, and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander is very much in the Orange Book mould. Memories will be evoked of the SDP-Liberal Alliance dynamic and its conflicts under David Steel and David Owen, but modern day distinctions drawn from the merged party’s birth in 1988 aren’t clear cut; Orange Booker Vince Cable was an SDP member prior to the merger, yet his ally is the more left wing Lib Dem Peer Matthew Oakeshott.

The Social Liberal Forum serves as an internal pressure group, approving the decision to join the Coalition but in opposition to NHS reforms and certain spending cuts. In addition to this, they have called for an ‘Economic Plan C’, which includes demands for a living wage, an increase in employment insurance, challenging the 1980s and 1990s’ neoliberal orthodoxies and a FFT (Financial Transactions Tax; better known as the ‘Robin Hood’ tax). Whilst the Orange Book section could arguably be sympathetic to some of these commitments, the Lib Dem Cabinet members are unlikely to lobby the Coalition for their inclusion, and the Orange Book call for individual health insurance is anathema to the Social Liberal Forum. A bigger concern for the Beveridge group (including me) is that David Laws has been announced as the author of the 2015 manifesto. Laws has been quoted as saying “I’m a liberal, not a tory”, which hints at this right wing leanings, and it is believed by some that had the Conservative stance on homosexuals in the 1980s not been so severe, he would have joined the Conservative Party. Laws is likely to call for the Party to drop its manifesto commitment to abolishing tuition fees, and is probably more receptive to further rounds of spending cuts. The Social Liberal Forum would not tolerate this.

With these issues in mind, it makes sense for Clegg to try and claim the centre ground. The Orange Book wing may call for a shift to the right as Labour-leaning voters have largely left the party after the tuition fee debacle, but this would seek to alienate the left-leaning support within the Lib Dem ranks. However, the future direction of the party hinges a lot on the outcome of the 2015 General Election. If the Lib Dems are hammered and haemorrhage large amounts of MPs, the clamour for Clegg to resign will be huge, with a potential opening for a Beveridge group MP to claim the leadership as a ‘change’ candidate. On the flip side, if Clegg can replicate Eastleigh in “57 by-elections” and stem their losses, then his position would be strengthened and he could be the man to lead the party into another Coalition.

For hypothetical reasons, let’s consider the event of a leadership election in 2015. Party President Tim Farron is very popular with the left of the Lib Dems, and has frequently been touted as a future leader. Ed Davey would be the likely candidate for the Orange Book side, and would have the backing of the more prominent Lib Dem MPs. In terms of appealing to former Lib Dem voters disaffected with the Coalition, Farron could have the edge over Davey in trying to win them back, especially as he voted against the 2010 tuition fee increase. However, Simon Hughes may yet throw his hat into the ring one last time, which could split the vote on the left. Furthermore, despite showing little appetite for the top job in the past, Vince Cable has been rumoured to be privately launching a leadership campaign. As both an Orange Booker and a Social Liberal Forum member (his chief supporter is Lord Oakeshott), Cable could clinch the election in one fell swoop.

The Beveridge group will always have a strong presence in the party, but at the present time the Orange Book side appear to be leading the way. If the party is to swing one way or the other, it will be predicated on the 2015 Election result. Even that may not totally remove one element or the other. As I have alluded to, the Lib Dems are paradoxically a divided party capable of presenting a united front. Radical policies such as raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 appeals to the Orange Book side of cutting taxes rather than increasing benefits, and the Beveridge group side of helping the poorest. Unlike the Conservative Party, there are no divisions over gay marriage or Europe in the Lib Dems, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a Beveridge group Lib Dem demanding that the party leaves the Coalition. The 2015 manifesto could give a better indication of what is to come, but a potential Coalition with Labour could yet catapult the Social Liberal Forum into the front seat.

Social Liberal Forum; ‘Economic Plan C’ link: http://socialliberal.net/slf-publications/economic-plan-c/