Error occured during this request! Please try again later.
The respected commentator Tim Montgomerie told a revealing story at the Conservative party conference about a man he met that week. The guy was an acute analyst of Manchester United strategy and tactics and also hoped that Scotland would stay in the UK. But this was weeks after they had done just that with the result dominating the newspaper and television headlines.
It was a salutary tale for political activists who can often make the mistake of believing that their passions are shared by many others. The anecdote prefaced a meeting where the pollster Lord Ashcroft outlined, in detail and in no uncertain terms, that the Conservatives are heading towards defeat at the British General Election in May next year.
However, this is calculated by polling people who may not have even begun to think about if and how they will cast their votes. Yet a variety of impressions will begin to add up in the next few months as people make their decisions, many at the last moment.
Again, few people take detailed notice of party conferences, however vital they are to activists and journalists hunting for stories. I guess the lingering legacy of these massive jamborees is that the Conservatives seemed upbeat and optimistic while Labour seemed downbeat and pessimistic. It was a much noticed paradox of the conferences.
The crowning glory of a party conference is the party leader's speech which may just allow the party to highlight a key phrase that summarises its basic pitch to the voters. Sadly, for Labour, many will remember that its leader, Ed Miliband forgot to mention the deficit, the backdrop to four years of austerity, in a speech that he theatrically memorised.
Funnily enough, David Cameron started this occasional practice in order to be more authentic, rather than reading from notes or from the autocue. If you're going to do it, though, do it properly.
I don't see the point of a leader wasting a great deal of time in trying. It is possible to read a speech and connect with the audience in the hall and on television. This mistake will hang round Miliband's neck like an albatross in the increasingly presidential combat of the next few months.
But the outcome of the next election is also made extremely complex by the continuing collapse of the old two party system in the UK. The duopoly is disappearing fast and has been hastened by the collapse of zero sum ideologies, and strong tribal loyalties once sustained by socialisation in large scale, union-influenced industries, as well as the rise of pluralism and individualism that the Internet encourages.
The Conservatives failed last time to achieve a majority and had to go into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Increasing the number of Conservative seats to form a majority is made tough because it takes more Conservative voters to win a seat than it does for Labour.
It is also made more difficult by a split on the right with the United Kingdom Independence Party poised to take votes from the Conservatives, and tip the balance in some seats to Labour. UKIP took one seat last week from the Conservatives and came within a whisker of taking one from Labour in its heartland.
But there's more to it. The following is informed guesswork. David Cameron's strong stance on renegotiating the British relationship with the European Union may or may not come a cropper in a few years time but may be enough for now, and when combined with memorable promises to cut taxes, to assuage those who could drift to UKIP. These stances, plus the benefits of incumbency, could stabilise or even boost the Tory base.
Labour may find that its core vote cannot be taken for granted. Parts of it are disaffected on themes that UKIP has made its own, such as Europe and immigration (which Miliband also forgot), and could win them some seats or gift them to others. Labour votes could also be swiped by the left-leaning Greens, which have one MP at present, and by the Scottish nationalists.
Much of the Yes vote for independence came from the traditional Labour stronghold of Glasgow. The SNP can argue that the best means of maximising the views of No voters in future negotiations about the changing shape of the informal federalism in the UK is to strengthen its parliamentary representation in Westminster. The Liberal Democrats will be squeezed and their representation halved by the two main parties but remain a credible coalition partner for the Conservatives or Labour.
There is a long way to go before the election but the Conservatives may well remain in government next year with support from the Liberal Democrats, and possibly a Northern Ireland party. If I am right, you read it here first and if I am not, just move on.
Gary Kent is the director of All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity.
* The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com
It was a salutary tale for political activists who can often make the mistake of believing that their passions are shared by many others. The anecdote prefaced a meeting where the pollster Lord Ashcroft outlined, in detail and in no uncertain terms, that the Conservatives are heading towards defeat at the British General Election in May next year.
However, this is calculated by polling people who may not have even begun to think about if and how they will cast their votes. Yet a variety of impressions will begin to add up in the next few months as people make their decisions, many at the last moment.
Again, few people take detailed notice of party conferences, however vital they are to activists and journalists hunting for stories. I guess the lingering legacy of these massive jamborees is that the Conservatives seemed upbeat and optimistic while Labour seemed downbeat and pessimistic. It was a much noticed paradox of the conferences.
The crowning glory of a party conference is the party leader's speech which may just allow the party to highlight a key phrase that summarises its basic pitch to the voters. Sadly, for Labour, many will remember that its leader, Ed Miliband forgot to mention the deficit, the backdrop to four years of austerity, in a speech that he theatrically memorised.
Funnily enough, David Cameron started this occasional practice in order to be more authentic, rather than reading from notes or from the autocue. If you're going to do it, though, do it properly.
I don't see the point of a leader wasting a great deal of time in trying. It is possible to read a speech and connect with the audience in the hall and on television. This mistake will hang round Miliband's neck like an albatross in the increasingly presidential combat of the next few months.
But the outcome of the next election is also made extremely complex by the continuing collapse of the old two party system in the UK. The duopoly is disappearing fast and has been hastened by the collapse of zero sum ideologies, and strong tribal loyalties once sustained by socialisation in large scale, union-influenced industries, as well as the rise of pluralism and individualism that the Internet encourages.
The Conservatives failed last time to achieve a majority and had to go into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Increasing the number of Conservative seats to form a majority is made tough because it takes more Conservative voters to win a seat than it does for Labour.
It is also made more difficult by a split on the right with the United Kingdom Independence Party poised to take votes from the Conservatives, and tip the balance in some seats to Labour. UKIP took one seat last week from the Conservatives and came within a whisker of taking one from Labour in its heartland.
But there's more to it. The following is informed guesswork. David Cameron's strong stance on renegotiating the British relationship with the European Union may or may not come a cropper in a few years time but may be enough for now, and when combined with memorable promises to cut taxes, to assuage those who could drift to UKIP. These stances, plus the benefits of incumbency, could stabilise or even boost the Tory base.
Labour may find that its core vote cannot be taken for granted. Parts of it are disaffected on themes that UKIP has made its own, such as Europe and immigration (which Miliband also forgot), and could win them some seats or gift them to others. Labour votes could also be swiped by the left-leaning Greens, which have one MP at present, and by the Scottish nationalists.
Much of the Yes vote for independence came from the traditional Labour stronghold of Glasgow. The SNP can argue that the best means of maximising the views of No voters in future negotiations about the changing shape of the informal federalism in the UK is to strengthen its parliamentary representation in Westminster. The Liberal Democrats will be squeezed and their representation halved by the two main parties but remain a credible coalition partner for the Conservatives or Labour.
There is a long way to go before the election but the Conservatives may well remain in government next year with support from the Liberal Democrats, and possibly a Northern Ireland party. If I am right, you read it here first and if I am not, just move on.
Gary Kent is the director of All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity.
* The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment