Politics Watch

There is a long history of people posting petitions to 10 Downing Street or even handing them over in person (although the latter option is less likely nowadays given the current security environment), but until recently there was no centralised method of doing this electronically. However, the people behind the 10 Downing Street website, with help from MySociety, have now introduced E-Petitions, whereby members of the public can propose and sign petitions to the Prime Minister. The site is still in beta testing, but already it has attracted a large number of signatures for several high-profile petitions such as the proposed repealing of the 2004 Hunting Act.

Whether or not any of these petitions will be taken seriously is another matter entirely, but at least there is now a much easier way for people to make their views known at the highest level of government.

Further reading

• No10 petitions system goes live

Following up on my previous post, Four most influential British Prime Ministers, BBC History Magazine has published an article by Francis Beckett listing the historian’s greatest Prime Ministers of the 20th Century. His list is fairly close to mine, although he puts the emphasis on the successful implementation of policies and therefore Blair falls down the list somewhat with only three points out of a possible five.

Further reading

• Thatcher and Attlee top PM list
• BBC History Magazine

Conservative leader David Cameron has announced new measures to bolster his existing plans to get more female MPs into the party. He has already been pushing pro-female measures for some time, but the new rules go even further than before. The main change is that a minimum of two out of the final four candidates shortlisted for selection (from whom the local party executive will choose the constituency’s Prospective Parliamentary Candidate) must be women.

Whilst I generally support the principle of encouraging people from underrepresented groups to get involved in politics, I think Cameron is using the wrong methods to achieve this. First of all, his policy is basically one of positive discrimination, and is the same as that used by my local students’ union to ensure that at least half the delegates to the NUS conference are women. Note that this restriction does not work both ways, as under these rules you could have a selection of candidates who were all female, but not a selection consisting entirely of male candidates. I’m not a fan of quotas in general, but if you’re going to insist on imposing them then at least make the figures fair to both sides. A better way to ensure a more even gender distribution would be to have a rule stating that one of the candidates must be female, another must be male, and the gender of the remainding two candidates is not an issue. This would ensure that both sexes would be represented by at least one candidate, whilst at the same time eliminating the possibility of the list comprising of candidates from one gender only.

One consequence that I fear may come about as a result of the application of this rule is the selection of candidates based purely on their gender. This could be manifested in two ways. Firstly, there is the possibility of women being put up as so-called “paper candidates”, where they are not expected to win but are on the ballot paper just to make up the numbers and keep Mr Cameron happy. The other possibility is where there is a choice between a male and a female candidate, and the woman is chosen because of her gender rather than her ability to do the job (I’m not implying that the female candidate wouldn’t be a better choice for other reasons, but the decision should be made on the basis of ability, not gender).

The other problem with this method of selection is that, in my opinion at least, it comes across as being somewhat patronising and degrading to female candidates. I don’t think any woman would like to be told or made to feel that she had been selected just because she was female, any more than a male candidate would want to find out that he had been turned down because there weren’t enough women on the shortlist.

In fact this whole debate, as is often the case in British politics, sounds suspiciously like an episode of the popular sitcom, Yes (Prime) Minister. The episode in question, ‘Equal Opportunities’, begins with Jim Hacker’s (the Minister for Administrative Affairs) plan to introduce more women into the top jobs in the civil service. As is usually the case, his plan is defeated by Sir Humphrey Appleby, and the final moments of the episode show him being admonished by one of the women he tries to promote, who accuses him of being patronising and treating her merely as part of a quota. Perhaps something similar could happen to David Cameron in the coming months?

Further reading

• Tories plan for more female MPs
• Cameron tries again to get more women selected
• Cameron to party: choose more women candidates

As part of Problogger’s Lists Group Writing Project, I’ve decided to compile a short list comprising of the four British Prime Ministers of recent times who I think have had the most influence on national affairs (it’s a short list as to make it any longer would include too large a percentage of the potential candidates). The selected politicians are listed in no particular order and their inclusion does not imply that I agree with any or all of their policies, only that I believe they had a significant influence on British politics whilst they were in power.

N.B. I have only mentioned matters of national importance in this list, so anything regarding international affairs—such as the conflict in the Falkland Islands—has not been taken into account, although all four of the politicians also had a significant impact overseas.

Margaret Thatcher

Arguably both the most revered and despised British politician of recent times, it never ceases to amaze me how the mere mention of Baroness Thatcher’s name can invoke such strong and mixed responses from the general public. That alone justifies her place on the list, but she also had a profound influence on the UK economy, with her relentless pursuit of privatisation changing the way we buy basic utilities such as gas and telephone services by taking these companies away from government control and forcing them to compete for business, instead of holding a monopolistic grip on the industry. Her influence can also be felt on the side of the employees through her sweeping trade union reforms which, amongst other things, lead to secondary picketing being banned.

As well as all these changes, Thatcher still holds the record for the longest continuously serving Prime Minister in over 150 years, and remarkably she is also the only woman ever to have reached the highest office in British politics. Like her or loathe her, there is no denying that Thatcher had a significant impact during her time as Prime Minister.

• Margaret Thatcher on Wikipedia
• Margaret Thatcher on 10 Downing Street

Winston Churchill

No list of influencial British Prime Ministers would be complete without the revered Winston Churchill. Whilst his performance as a peace time leader is often considered to have been somewhat lacklustre, his legacy was secured by his premiership during World War II. His inspirational stance, soundbites and speeches (including such memorable quotes as “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”) helped to rally the British people and encouraged them to fight on even as France surrended to Germany.

Widely credited as Britain’s greatest ever Prime Minister and almost certainly the most famous person to have held the post, Churchill is also one of the few people outside of the Royal Family to be honoured on his death with a state funeral.

• Winston Churchill on Wikipedia
• Winston Churchill on 10 Downing Street

Clement Attlee

Although Attlee is perhaps somewhat less well-known than the other names on this list, he did have a profound influence on British politics during his time as Prime Minister. Some of his efforts were subsequently undone by later governments, such as his nationalisation of several utilities industries (including coal and steel) and the railways, which were reversed by the aggressive privatisation programme spearheaded by Thatcher’s government.

However, by far and away the most influential decision that Attlee ever made was to create the National Health Service (NHS), which still survives to this day and provides healthcare free at the point of delivery to hundreds of thousands of people daily, as well as being the largest employer in Europe. In my opinion, this alone overshadows anything else that Attlee did whilst Prime Minister, and guarantees him a place on this list.

• Clement Attlee on Wikipedia
• Clement Attlee on 10 Downing Street

Tony Blair

Another name that produces differences of opinion in the same way as Thatcher does, our current head of government has had a significant influence over the past nine years he has been at the helm. His first success was to lead the Labour Party (which he rebranded and relaunched as ‘New Labour’ with the help of several close colleagues) into a general election victory, simultaneously bringing the end to eighteen years of Conservative rule and securing a huge majority for his party in the House of Commons. During his time as Prime Minister, Blair has set up numerous significant programmes of reform in public services—most notably health and education—and has even changed the way Parliament works by making several alterations to the House of Lords. Under his leadership the government has also produced legislation on a massive scale, creating hundreds of new criminal offences, though often justified on somewhat dubious grounds.

Even though rumours about when he will resign continue to float around the media, I suspect that Blair will continue to have a significant influence on British politics for some time yet, and even after he has gone the foundations he has set will probably lead the Labour party into at least one more general election.

• Tony Blair on Wikipedia

One of my friends forwarded me this link last night: George Galloway Savages SKY NEWS!. As usual Gorgeous George describes almost every question he is asked as “preposterous” and never actually answers the question but instead launches a tirade of shouting at the news reader. It’s interesting to watch though, if only to see the leader of Respect make a fool of himself.

There has been some speculation over the last week about the possibility of the Conservative Party adopting a new logo to replace the symbolic hand carrying a torch that has been used since 1977. The torch itself underwent a makeover in 2004, but it was still the same recognisable logo, although personally I think it looked a bit less symbolic afterwards. The actual details of the new logo have not been officially released, but a scan of the image has appeared on the BBC website and the general consensus seems to be that it will consist of an oak tree in some form.

My thoughts on the proposed new logo are somewhat mixed. First of all, I think the party really needs to concentrate on developing and publicising new policies, rather than embarking on a quest to find a new logo, which will probably create internal rumblings within the party—something to be avoided at all costs. Ditching the torch will almost certainly antagonise the older members of the party grassroots, but then again it’s probably about time that they were pushed to one side to an extent anyway.

However, I do think that a new logo will help move the image of the Conservatives away from the Thatcher era, the shadow of which still hangs over the party to an extent (I remember asking at a party meeting if it was about time to cast off the spectre of Thatcherism and get young people involved—it resulted in a round of applause but of course nothing came of it). With a new leader and more liberal policies, the party does seem to looking forward to the future instead of back to the past of the 80’s heydays. A new logo might be the final nail in the coffin of the old “home guard” Conservatives and the bridge to a prosperous future for a party that is starting to once again look like it could win a general election.

As for the logo itself (as opposed to whether a new one is actually needed), I think the oak tree is a bit of a strange choice. A tree is not a symbol that I would associate with politics in general (except perhaps with the Green Party), and certainly not with the Conservatives. It does appear that some of the logo will feature the traditional Tory blue though, but I remain unconvinced about how the general public will see an oak tree logo and think “Vote Conservative”—which is presumably the overall aim. Time will tell though, as it always does.

Further coverage

• Thatcher’s torch extinguished as Cameron’s Conservatives carve new logo out of oak
• Tories favour ‘oak tree revamp’

Now that the dust has cleared and all the results have been announced, it’s time for a reflection on how the various parties have fared in the recent local elections.

Labour

It was a bad night for Labour across the country, as they ended up losing over three hundred seats in total by the time all the results were announced. Although the governing party always expects to lose seats in local elections as the electorate use it as a way of expressing their grievances with the people in power, it was more awkward for Labour in many ways because of Tony Blair’s promise to go but with no indication of when. The poor showing will undoubtably give his detractors a stick to beat him with, though probably not enough to make him step down in the next twelve months.

Conservatives

The Tories were by far the major winners in the local elections, picking up most of the seats that Labour lost, as well as taking control of eleven councils and pushing several others (including Bury) into No Overall Control. With a projected vote share of 40%, compared to the relatively poor 27% and 26% of the Lib Dems and Labour respectively, it was certainly their night at the polls.

However, the Conservatives failed to make significant gains in the major northern cities, and they still have no councillors in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and several other cities. This takes some of the shine off the otherwise good showing by the Tories, because I think they really need to make some inroads into big cities if they want to return to power.

Liberal Democrats

The Lib Dems usually do well in local elections, picking up the floating voters who are dissatisfied with the government but aren’t ready to switch back to voting Conservative. This time, however, they failed to make any real progress, making a net gain of only two councillors and one council. I think there are a number of reasons for this poor performance.

First of all, the recent leadership contest and the controvesy surrounding it has rattled the Lib Dems somewhat. They have certainly lost some of their perceived integrity in the process, especially given that the previous leader and two of the leadership candidates brought the party into disrepute early on in the year.

Secondly, Campbell hasn’t really had much time to make his mark on the party or come out as a particularly strong leader. That’s not to say that he doesn’t have potential, more that he hasn’t had the opportunity to demonstrate his abilities yet. I believe it will take a few more months before we will be able to give a fair verdict on how good a leader he is.

Finally, I don’t think the Lib Dems ran a very effective campaign this year. In previous elections there have usually been Lib Dem posters all over the place, with lots of party members handing out leaflets and pushing their policies to the general public. This year I haven’t seen as much campaigning done, and the party seems to have stalled somewhat. Personally, I think that this is partially down to the fact that playing the War in Iraq card seems to be less effective, and also because of other parties (particularly the Conservatives) playing to previous Lib Dem strengths, such as their focus on environmental issues.

British National Party

At first glance, it seems as if the BNP did particularly well in the local elections, managing to double the number of council seats under their control and become the second largest party on Barking and Dagenham council. Nick Griffin was particularly buoyant when the results were announced, boasting about how well the party had performed.

However, anyone worried about a sudden rise in the far right can take assurance from two sides. First of all, whilst the BNP have indeed doubled the number of council seats they control, one has to remember that they only had twenty to start off with. If you look it as “the BNP gained just over twenty seats” instead of “the BNP more than doubled its number of seats”, then the situation doesn’t appear quite as frightening. Also, even with forty councillors, the BNP still only represents approximately 0.2% of the available seats, so they are hardly poised to take over the reigns of government.

Finally, as pointed out in Will BNP election gains last?, history would tell us that these sort of results tend not to repeat themselves. It seems unlikely that these gains for the BNP will be reflected in the next general election, and the same applies for the next round of local elections.

Green Party

The Greens made a number of important gains, increasing their seats in places where they were already strong, such as Oxford, and moving into new areas such as Islington and Camden. Unfortunately, I suspect that they are seen as a one issue party by many people (the name certainly doesn’t help dissipate this viewpoint), which probably damaged their chances of success in more urban areas such as Manchester, where they failed to make much of an impact.

Further information

• Election 2006 In Depth at BBC News

A little light relief before my write-up of the recent local elections:

Boris Johnson vs Germany

Greens outline electoral campaign via BBC News – Politics

With a degree of confidence not normally held by minority parties, the Green Party has announced that it will be fielding over 1,300 candidates in this year’s local elections, contesting over a quarter of the 4,000+ council seats that are up for grabs in May. They are apparently upbeat about making gains in several of the London boroughs, and are targetting areas such as Oxford where they already hold the balance of power and also performed better than any other minority parties in the 2005 general election.

My personal view is that this may be the first chance that the Greens have at gaining enough seats to be considered a proper political force instead of their current status as a left-wing minority party. I can’t really comment on their chances in other areas, but I think that there’s a real possibility of them gaining a seat in one of the Manchester areas if they mount a good campaign and target the right wards.

Related links

• Green Party

After a bitter leadership contest lasting two months and dogged by various revelations about the candidates, Sir Menzies Campbell has emerged as the new leader of the Liberal Democrats. The current Party President, Simon Hughes – initially thought to be one of the strongest contenders, was knocked out in the first round and his votes were transferred under the Single Transferable Vote system. The second round involved a close stand-off between the two remaining candidates, but in the end Campbell came out on top with 57% of the vote, beating economic affairs spokesman Chris Huhne to the post. Both defeated candidates pledged their immediate support to Campbell following the result.

Personally, I’m not sure exactly what to make of the whole leadership contest. If you’d asked me for my thoughts at the beginning, I would have probably put my money on Simon Hughes – as his role as Party President has already given him a lot of media coverage and he was generally well regarded within the party as far as I could tell. His admission that he misled people over his sexuality seems to have hurt his campaign more than I would otherwise have thought – I certainly didn’t expect him to come last out of three candidates. Huhne, on the other hand, did a lot better than I initially expected, especially for someone who only became an MP at the last general election. He’s certainly one to watch over the coming months, and could possibly use his success to bolster his chances for victory at the next leadership election, should Campbell decide to step down in the next four to five years.

It now remains to be seen whether Campbell can repair the damage done to the party over the last few months, although the recent by-election victory in Dunfermline and West Fife will help to an extent. Unless there any more scandals about to come out, the media will drift away now that the contest is over, although coverage hasn’t been anything like as much as it was for the equivalent Conservative leadership race before Christmas.

On a somewhat lighter note, it looks like it might be Gordon vs. Ming at the next general election (not really sure how Cameron fits into it, perhaps he can be Klytus?), although I’m sure Private Eye and other satirical publications have made that comment a dozen times already.

Media coverage

• Sir Menzies wins Lib Dem contest at BBC News – Politics
• Campbell wins Lib Dem leadership at Guardian Unlimited – Politics