Jonathan Todd

Danny Finkelstein is shocked that none of the Tory leadership are amongst the top 5 politicians of the year identified by PoliticsHome. But it doesn’t seem so surprising when set against an observation made by Rod Liddle last month:

“There are few names on the opposition front bench who seem to be possessed of either gravitas or chutzpah, still less conviction.”

Is Liddle really so wrong? If he isn’t, then the PoliticsHome result isn’t so strange at all, but it does illustrate a significant problem that the Conservatives would seem to have.

Given that the Guardian now report that David “Cameron faces Eurosceptic backlash after Czech Lisbon treaty decision”, it seems an apt moment to revisit this question: ”Could UKIP still save the day for Labour?”

Perhaps confounding expectations of what the Spectator would be like with Fraser Nelson as editor, James Forsyth at Coffee House has been quick to man the trenches on Cameron’s behalf and insist he “hasn’t broken a pledge on Europe”. Such activity from someone, who is, among “the leading commentators”, according to Danny Finkelstein, to well “understand what the Cameron team are trying to do” might suggest that this team is worried that UKIP could indeed save the day for Labour.

I’m doubtful that Nigel Farage and co have it in them to save Labour’s speck (at least any more than the BNP have the potential to steal this same bacon by similarly undercutting the vote of one of the major parties). But, certainly, it is in Labour’s interests to widen and magnify the divisions that obviously linger within the Tory Party on Europe.

Ah, a dividing line, Number 10 surely cries. But I hope it doesn’t. As I have argued elsewhere, Labour needs to be more realistic about our capacity to impact perceptions of the Tories. Essentially, our capacity in this regard is almost zero. Instead of trying to mine this very limited potential, we should be focusing on changing perceptions of ourselves; presenting a positive case for Labour. This argument holds on Europe as much as it does on other areas of policy. So, rather than any ”clever” tactical games, I suggest that Labour makes a positive case for the EU and for our position on the Lisbon Treaty and the future of the EU, while hoping that the snipping of Bill Cash et al opens up the divisions within the Tories that any ”clever” tactical games would seek to achieve and, in so doing, pushes some Tory voters in the direction of UKIP.

It might seem madness (even suicidal) to attempt to present a positive case for the EU and Lisbon Treaty in the UK at the moment. But, first, a more negative politics of dividing lines ignores the reality of our ability to impact perceptions of the Tories. David Aaronovitch’s ability in this regard is probably now stronger than the whole of the Cabinet’s combined. Second, part of the reason that this seems madness is because the dots between the Lisbon Treaty and our national interest remain so un-joined. Take, for example, Daniel Korski’s well-made argument today: ”Europe has the US president it wished for, but Barack Obama lacks the strong transatlantic partner he desired.” This is profoundly true and it is manifestly in the UK’s interest that the EU becomes this strong transatlantic partner. It is far more likely to be able to perform such a role once the improvements to its systems of governance enabled by the Lisbon Treaty are in place.

Labour should make arguments of this kind; arguments that are global and universal in focus, as we leave Cameron and Cash to petty and parochial arguments (Cameron and Cash even sounds suitably like a petty and parachial firm of solictors). Combining UKIP with an enlightened and far-sighted approach from Labour could yet save the day.

“The expenses fiasco has shown why Parliament must change its ways”, well argues Daniel Finkelstein today. He concludes that “if it doesn’t a succession of disasters will follow”. He asks:

“When the House of Commons is about half full or more, MPs simply bellow and heckle each other, making intelligent debate impossible …  And the things MPs shout are not very nice, either. Sexist, rude, slanderous, irrelevant, childish. How long can it be before someone sits there, writes it all down and puts it on their blog? How long before first one MP, then another, is caught saying something inappropriate? The apologies, the disclipinary action. You can see it all, can’t you?”

I can see it all. But only from behind the parliamentary security screen which relegates parliament to the status of a zoo. Ordinary people can only view in person proceedings in the Commons behind a security screen that makes the sound very much akin to that which they would hear if they were watching proceedings on TV. This means that they are largely unable to hear things which are shouted by MPs other than the one who is supposed to be speaking at that particular time. The screen is supposed to protect the parliamentarians from the people – and the people have much cause to be angry with the parliamentarians at the moment – but the screen has the effect of protecting the people from the parliamentarians as if the parliamentarians are a gang of wild tigers or similar. I am not sure we need this protection and it certainly makes it harder for us to look forward to the blog that Finkelstein anticipates.

Good post earlier this week from Danny Finkelstein:

“A very interesting comment from Pregethwr underneath my post on Labour and its leadership:

‘No Blairite seems to acknowledge, even those who were around at the time, that Blair won in 1994 with a coalition that reached deep (very deep – Peter Hain, Harriet Harman) into the soft left of the party. He won because he squeezed Robin Cook to such extent that he could have only run as the candidate of the far left and lost. No Blairite seems to want to build that coalition, they seem to want to run a ‘back me or lose’ campaign and blackmail the party into supporting them. Worked well for Ken Clarke that tactic didn’t it?’

“I am quite sympathetic to this argument.

“During the three or four years that preceded David Cameron’s election to the leadership of the Tory Party, we modernisers often discussed how we had been better at diagnosing the electoral failures of the Tory Party, and less good at analysing our own political failure to persuade the Tory Party.

“That having been said, the alliance that Tony Blair built was only possible because the soft left abandoned their position. They accepted that they had to win and were prepared to make whatever sacrifice was necessary to do that.

“I agree with Pregethwr that the Blairites need to build a broad coalition in order to win. It’s just that this may not be possible”. 

To which I replied:

“Susan Crosland’s biography of her husband records that he said to Roy Hattersley just before his death:

‘We have got to keep making the point that the far Left are not the only people that can claim a socialist theory while the rest of us are thought to be mere pragmatists and administrators. It’s not enough to disagree with the Marxists et al. The centre must remember and keep reminding people that we are ideologists too’.

“The centre of the Labour Party must again do so”.

“This was the week in which Labour lost the next election”, according to Matthew d’Ancona. A coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems is the best response, thinks Sunder Katwala, while Matthew Taylor suggests a, “radical departure from past practice. How about declaring a unilateral political ceasefire?” John Prescott was spitting feathers in a wholly absurd and unnecessary fashion with Taylor. Presumably, he is at least as angry with Katwala. But, at least, Prescott wants to fight this war; the next general election.

Danny Finkelstein suggests that Ed Balls is briefing against Ed Miliband as part of the next war; the race to be the next leader of the Labour Party. Balls, allegedly, wants to be the candidate of the left in this contest, though I can’t see him usurping Jon Cruddas from this position. Given that Labour could well swing leftwards in opposition, as a Blair/Brown backlash occurs against a backdrop of continued economic struggles, this is a position from which Cruddas could be victorious.

This is an outcome which is unlikely to delight either of the Eds, but the extent of Labour’s leftward swing in opposition may be directly proportionate to Cameron’s majority. Labour Party discipline will be easier to maintain if the party feels itself to be closer to a return to government. So the Ballses and the Milibands may best fight their next war (i.e. the Labour leadership election) by focusing entirely upon this war (i.e. the general election). In this much, Prescott is right. But, I think, there is more to be said for Taylor’s suggestion than he thinks. Certainly, the public appetite now is very much for sincere and strategic leadership, not political game playing. While I am not quite sure how one goes about “a unilateral political ceasefire”, Charles Clarke would seem to have suggested a good place to start.

“Surely it would be better both for Labour and for the country if the prime minister were now to announce the date of the next general election (my preference would be 6 May 2010). That would show confidence in the government’s economic approach, rebut any allegation that Labour was trying to manipulate economic decisions for party advantage and remove the rampant speculation around election timing which can erode the clarity and direction of the government’s leadership”.