England's Green & Pleasant Land

One of the unexpected pleasures of electioneering in a semi-rural constituency has been the opportunity to explore some of the smaller, more off-the-beaten-track communities. Leafletting on an unseasonably warm Spring day the weekend before last, I was able to evade the boredom by drinking in the architectural idiosyncracies offered on view. A small Norman church glimpsed between two buildings; a genuine working farm in all its anarchic glory, sitting almost uncomfortably amongst the ersatz rurality of the converted farm buildings surrounding it.

Another thing that struck me whilst threading my way up the immaculately manicured gardens, past the large German cars on the drives, was that I was in the presence of considerable affluence. Considering my own circumstances are significantly better than average, and that I am miles away from being able to afford such a lifestyle, what do such people do for a living?

Who's hearing the Dog Whistle?

No doubt everyone will have heard Michael Howard's latest pronouncements on Gypsies and Travellers, which join a long list of Crosby-inspired "common sense" issues of concern to "ordinary, hard-working peepill [tm]" such as Asylum and Immigration.

I am sure I'm not the only person of liberal (small - l) persuasion who's profoundly disturbed by the tone of the Tory election campaign thusfar. There's no doubt its clever, and there's no doubt its pushing the buttons of both the core Tory vote and also the conservative (small-c) voters who deserted the Tories to bring New Labour to power in 1997. Michael Howard needs both groups to be on side and motivated to turn out, for him to have a sniff of office in 2005.

The key feature of this campaign is that there is always a subtle movement from the specific ("these individual travellers have been causing a nuisance in this specific location") to the general ("all travellers are a nuisance"). The Tories argue that they are only raising legitimate concerns, but the right-wing press picks up and generalises these messages and extends them to all members of certain groups, thereby stoking the fires of intolerance. That is a highly dangerous tiger to ride for the well-being and cohesiveness of our society.

Michael Howard and Linton Crosby are shrewd political operators who know exactly how certain sections of the press will spin their message. Therefore, they need to make it clear in no uncertain terms that the specifics do not apply to the general. I am yet to see evidence that they are doing this, and therefore they can be deemed to be complicit in this process.

Perhaps all will not go their way, however. It is my fervant hope that all voters of a liberal/progressive persuasion are also picking up this shrill, nearly inaudible "whistle", and will as a consequence be more motivated to ensure that both the New Labour government that panders to this way of thinking and its potential Tory replacement have their ambitions curbed at the ballot box in May.

Given his own family history, I don't know how Michael Howard sleeps at night ...

Is 2005 the year of the breakthrough?

Their history was long and illustrious, filled with acheivement. But in the years since they had fallen on hard times, always flattering to deceive and never quite delivering when it mattered. Their supporters continued more in hope than in expectation, a small but committed band from unfashionable parts. There were numerous false dawns, always followed by disappointment and recrimination. It was feared they were doomed for ever to failure.

Yet in 2003 they showed signs of a strong recovery, with some good performances - the old spark was back. People started talking about them as serious contenders again. Behind the scenes things were stirring, progress was being made as a new professionalism took hold.

Then in 2005 it all came right. A steeliness backed up by discipline and commitment forged in the years of adversity showed itself in defeats of both the Red Rose and the Blues. Both were bigger, better funded, and favourite to win, but both stuttered and came unstuck in the face of the onslaught. The unfancied outsiders finally, after many years of waiting, claimed the ultimate prize.

So, a big congratulations to the Welsh Rugby Union Team for their remarkable acheivement in winning a first Grand Slam for 27 years.

Let's hope this story has its parallels in the political sphere come May 5th.

First Past the Postal Vote

Last night I attended a meeting of my constituency party’s election committee. This was a bit of a marathon session, as the County elections are looming and we are also preparing for a May 5th General Election in the absence of any counter-indications. There is much still to be done.

Its only when you become immersed in the minutae of practical electioneering that some of the more subtle inequities of our electoral system become apparent. Two of these manifest themselves in the interlinked forms of the Freepost Election Address and the Postal Vote.

For explanation, in the unlikely case that the reader is not a fully paid-up political anorak, the Freepost is a free one-off letter or leaflet delivery to all electors or households, made on each party’s behalf by the Post Office during a General Election campaign. The choice between a letter to each elector or a leaflet to each household depends mainly upon the finances of the party, as the leaflet or letter has to be paid for; it is only its delivery that is free. The printing costs of even a simple leaflet can be a four-figure sum and may be out of the reach of a smaller party.

A lack of finances is one issue, but there are further practical problems. If the Government decides to call a snap election, then four weeks is a very short time to write, edit, send to the printers, print, and deliver your leaflet to the Post Office for distribution. In a large-ish mixed sub-urban and rural constituency such as mine, with a small activist base, the Freepost is often the only means by which many voters will receive a communication from their local party. Consequently it is a very important part of any constituency-wide campaign, and any delay may mean there is not enough time to get it delivered before polling day. Funnily enough this risk can be avoided by the party that knows when it is calling the election ...

The increased popularity of postal voting following 2003’s all-postal elections in some areas creates a further problem. Indeed it is estimated that in some constituencies postal votes may account for 40% of the turnout. Yet the Post Office promise only to undertake the Freepost delivery at some point during the election campaign, which is typically four weeks long. But, as postal votes have to be returned around ten days before polling day there is a strong possibility that the Freepost won’t have been received by postal voters before they cast their vote. This completely negates the point of having the Freepost in the first place – the desire to try and level the playing-field between rich and poor parties.

Notwithstanding all the above, the final point about postal voting is that it ossifies postal voters’ attitudes at a point well before the campaign ends. If “a week is a long time in politics”, then ten days is an eternity. Plenty of things could happen in the campaign between the close of postal voting and polling day itself to affect the way someone might vote.

From a Liberal Democrat point of view, the evidence of the past two or three decades is that this “freezing” of the campaign at a point well before its end would tend to work against us in more ways than those already discussed. Typically we put on 3-5% in the opinion polls over the election period, as the rules about equitable media coverage give us the increased exposure usually granted only at by-elections or conference time. Often, we need the whole campaign not just to get across our national message but also to hit home hard in voters’ minds the tactical situation in their constituency.

By voting early, voters are more likely to vote by reflex. When asked who they support unprompted by party name, opinion poll evidence suggests an overstatement of the two main parties (people “forget” that there are other options to Conservative or Labour if not explicitly told them) compared to actual election results. Voting Liberal Democrat is often a more considered action, as the campaign and tactical messages need time to sink in. To illustrate how important this might prove to be in the upcoming election, I have heard anecdotally that the total postal votes received by Labour were bigger than their majorities in each of the recent Hartlepool and Birmingham Hodge Hill by-elections. In other words, it seems the Liberal Democrats “won” the final days of the campaign measured by votes at the polling booth, but Labour “won” the postal vote by a bigger margin, thus gaining overall victory. The “band-waggon” effect was successfully negated.

Of course all this is before we even begin to consider the opportunities for fraud and personation using postal votes, highlighted by the case currently underway in Birmingham ….

No wonder New Labour encourage it.

Emerging from the Primordial Soup ... into the Blogosphere

Thank you to John for inviting me to write this blog, and to you for reading it. I'm a recently joined party member and activist in the East Midlands, trying to juggle an interest in politics with the demands of a young family and career. The constituency where I live is the safe seat of a Conservative ex-Minister, and I'm also campaigning in a nearby Liberal Democrat target from the Conservatives, Harborough.

From a personal perspective this is the most interesting election I've ever been involved. During the 1980s and 1990s I watched the Conservatives win election after election with a mounting sense of dispair. I shared the general joy of their ejection in 1997, and was not too dismayed in 2001 when Labour won a second term, given the 18 years of Tory rule preceding it were still a raw memory.

2005, though, is different. And very interesting from a partisan perspective. Electoral geography and FPTP can throw up a huge number of different outcomes based on local factors and small changes in vote percentage and distribution. The election is a lot more open than is generally perceived by the public. The government has lost a lot of its shine, but the main opposition is not yet fully trusted or liked. And that makes it exciting for the activist, because there's a feeling that there's everything to play for. Indeed, it was that feeling that encouraged me to become an activist for the first time in my life, just before Christmas.

Over the next few weeks I will share some of my thoughts and feelings about the nature of the campaign, both locally and nationally. I hope they are of some interest and prove informative.