Polling in October

Political polls seem to have been few and far between lately. A lot of people, especially people in politics, don’t seem to have much time for them. “The only poll that matters is the one on the day of the election” they say, but I think they’re wrong. Obviously polls at the moment have little value in as much as the next general election will probably not be held until 2009 – some people are contemplating a snap election next year but I think this is unlikely – and so the mood of the country at the moment doesn’t really matter; the mood of the county in 2009 is what will be important. Nevertheless, voting intention polls do give a flavour of the feelings of the country, what they think about the parties, their leaders and their actions. They show how people respond to words or deeds of the main political parties; whether they think they should be rewarded or punished for introducing this or that policy, or opposing the government on this or that issue.

The polling for the Liberal Democrats has been somewhat mixed since the last general election. In early 2005 we were averaging around the early to mid 20s. These were great figures for us and though the actual election result of 22.0% was perhaps a little lower than expected, I was perfectly content. Since then, however, our figures don’t seem to be quite so healthy. I can understand this. There are a number of factors which would lead to a decreased Lib Dem vote share: the turmoil over Charles Kennedy’s departure and the replacement of a very popular leader with one less so; the election of David Cameron as Tory party leader; the anti-war vote diminishing slightly once the general election was over. It’s not unsurprising that our figures have dropped, but the questions are: how far have they dropped, and will they recover?

It’s nearly eighteen months after the general election, and David Cameron and Ming Campbell have both been in power for several months. How have we been doing now that the honeymoon periods are over? Three polls have been published in the last week with huge differences in figures:

12th – 16th October (Ipsos MORI)
LAB: 37%
CON: 35%
LD: 18%

20th-22nd October (ICM)
LAB: 29%
CON: 39%
LD: 22%

20th – 22nd October (CR)
LAB: 32%
CON: 38%
LD: 14%

I won’t go into the differences too much: there are plenty of fantastic political sites out there who can analyse the results. But what do the results mean for us, the Lib Dems? Well, according to my UK Polling Report Swing Calculator, the results give us, the Lib Dems, a total of 45, 57 and 30 seats. It’s been a long time since a poll has given us a greater number of seats but I genuinely can’t see us losing that many seats at the next election. There are seats which we don’t hold, but can win, and we tend to be OK at holding on to those seats we have. I’d be very surprised if we lost a net total of more than, say, ten seats at the next election.

As for the rest of the parties, Ipsos gives a hung Parliament with Labour just a few seats short of a majority. ICM gives a hung Parliament with the Tories a few seats short of a majority. And CR gives a hung Parliament with no party close to a majority. A hung Parliament definitely seems to be on the cards and, in some ways, that seems to be what many people want. They’re not happy with labour and they’re convinced that they should be in power any longer, but at the same time they’re not entirely sure whether it’s time again for the Tories to regain power. There is, of course, a third option: a Liberal Democrat government, but it seems like people don’t particularly want that either! Of course, if we had proportional representation, things would be a little clearer, but that still doesn’t resolve the issue that no party currently has a clear lead over the other. The Tories are invariably ahead in the polls, but only ever by a few points and often this would still mean Labour getting more seats. What will happen at the next election? Ask me in 2009.

Reform

So it looks like the government is actually going to complete its promise of House of Lords reform. I was supportive of the first part of the reform – the removal of most of the hereditary peers – but was disappointed that the government’s plans then seemed to stall somewhat. I’ve no idea why it’s taken quite so long to complete the job they promised to do nearly ten years ago, but better late than never and if they can introduce legislation in this Parliament, then that’d be fantastic.

But what kind of second chamber do we want? The general consensus is that it should be largely elected and its role should be that of scrutinising legislation. I think that this is a good start. The current House of Lords isn’t directly elected at all and this needs to change. The leaked agenda of the cross-party group on the issue suggests that the government wants a half-elected, half-appointed chamber. This is not enough. I feel strongly that any body involved in legislating for the country needs to be predominately elected by the population. I think a minimum of 70% elected sounds fair. A total of 450 members is suggested, and allowing up to 30% - or 135 – of these to be appointed allows for: (a) a chamber largely elected (b) an unlikelihood of any political party having an absolutely majority in the chamber and (c) plenty of spaces for specialists to be appointed by the government. There are many who feel that the chamber should be entirely elected, and I have much sympathy with this idea, but I think that some spaces should be reserved for appointed members. On complicated issues it would be immensely useful to have experts in various fields – such as health and medicine, judicial issues, science and so forth – there to look over the legislation to ensure that it will be useful and effective. Their insight would be invaluable and would strengthen the effectiveness of legislation, ensuring that the laws produced were of a higher quality than they currently are. These appointed members would need to be approved by a cross-party group made up of members of the House of Commons. It cannot be the job of the government of the day to select the appointments, or else we run the risk of an unscrupulous government (if one should ever exist – ha ha) packing up the second chamber with cronies. But an independent commission could suggest people, and then these could be confirmed by an all-party group.

As for how those who are to be elected should be elected, well some method of proportional representation should be used. Either STV in multi-member constituencies (maybe larger regional constituencies such as those used for the European Parliament), or the open-list system should be used. So long as the basic principles of: (a) the elected members representing proportionally how people voted, and (b) the ability of electors to vote for people as well as parties are respected, I’m not all-too fussed.

So those are my thoughts on the second chamber: a largely-elected body elected using a proportional representation system, with a set number of members appointed as specialists in various fields. Whether the government will go ahead with something similar remains to be seen, but I think they will. They might need a little cajoling and nudging here and there, but I think that given that the Lib Dems are so keen on this issue – and quite rightly so – I have confidence that we’ll keep the government in check on this one.

The Veil

The veil is once again in the news. To be honest, it feels like there’s been no news for about a month now except for politicians adding their thoughts on the issue. David Cameron feels that too many politicians were “piling in” on the issue, thereby adding his own name to the ever-growing list of MPs with something to say on the matter. Now I’m not a politician but I thought I’d add my own thoughts. First, people have the right to wear whatever they want. We have freedom of expression in this country and this includes, in my opinion, the right to wear whatever clothes you wish. This even includes the right to wear dungarees and novelty ties: two of the most horrendous pieces of clothing ever invented. Muslim women have the right to wear headscarves, veils, even veils which cover their whole faces if they choose.

However, as with most rights, limitations in certain circumstances may be necessary, particularly in places of work. It would be unhygienic for a chef to wear nothing but a bikini, for example; it would be inappropriate for a teacher to wear clothing with swear words on it and so forth. In the recent case of the teacher sacked for refusing to take off her face-covering veil, I support the judgment. Her face was obscured by the veil and when it comes to teaching, communication is everything and visibility of the face is important, especially when teaching languages or children with hearing difficulties. Her choice of clothing was hindering her capacity to teach and so the school did what it thought was necessary. When working in fields like education or health, we may need to put the rights of those we help ahead of our own.

More controversial is the idea that those who wear veils are isolating themselves, or excluding themselves from society in some way. It’s a tricky issue. I’m in two minds. On the one hand, we should respect those who practice their religion to be able to do so freely. If some Muslim women genuinely feel that their religion requires them to cover their face, then that should be respected. On the other hand, these are difficult times we live in and the conflict between the West and the Middle East is ever-growing. I worry that eventually there’s going to be a clash, a big clash. To prevent this from happening, both sides need to make an effort to reconcile differences and learn to live beside each other. Some British people find the veil to represent a barrier between “us” and “them”, may find it uncomfortable to talk to people wearing a veil. I don’t think I’ve ever actually met someone wearing a veil, but I can imagine that it’s off-putting to an extent. 80% of communication is non-verbal after all, and all the benefits of a face-to-face conversation are lost if the face isn’t visible.

I don’t know what the answer is. I can see both points of view. I guess further education is needed on religious symbols and clothing is needed. Many people don’t entirely understand the reasons or significance of wearing a veil, and this needs to be addressed. However, perhaps some Muslim women could ask themselves whether in these tense and difficult times, whether a modification of their clothing is possible – within their interpretation of Islam – in order to ease tensions and promote integration. As invariably is the case, both sides can do more. What we want to avoid is a situation where both sides get more indignant that they’re correct and the barriers between “us” and “them” get that little bit higher.

Ruth Kelly and anti-discrimination

Oh dear oh dear. One of my least favourite Cabinet members, Ruth Kelly (you know, the one that looks like a 10-year old boy and whose voice is just a little too deep) is in the news again. Before the last election, the Lib Dems called for anti-discrimination laws in the area of goods and services on the grounds of sexuality. Following an EU Directive, it’s now illegal to discriminate in the field of employment on the ground of sexuality, and the Lib Dems wanted a similar law implemented for goods and services. When the Equality Bill was introduced to Parliament in 2005, and amendment was put forward to this effect, was supported by the government and can now be found in the Equality Act 2006 Part 3. All seemed fine. However, it now emerges that Ruth Kelly – Minister for Equality – is pushing for an exemption so that religious groups can continue to discriminate.

I was greatly concerned when Ruth Kelly was appointed as Minister for Equality. Labour has a pretty good – although not perfect – record on gay rights, but Ms Kelly’s was frankly appalling. She has missed almost every vote on gay rights issues, and has even voted against gay adoption. She has furthermore refused to say whether or not homosexuality is a sin. We all know about Ms Kelly’s membership of Opus Dei and in theory that shouldn’t be a problem. Having religious beliefs in no way hinders your ability to be a politician unless you allow those beliefs to interfere with your work. Ruth Kelly has clearly allowed her religious views to play a part in her political activities and this is deeply disturbing.

Ruth Kelly is supported in her quest by Tony Blair, but there are, thankfully, opponents to her plans. Alan Johnson – one of the Cabinet members I do like – has called on her not to water down the plans, and the Lib Dems’ equality spokesperson, Lorely Burt, has been brilliant:

"We fully believe in the rights of all groups to freedom of speech, whatever the views they espouse may be. However, in any commercial sphere we should not allow any individual or group belief to justify discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, gender or sexual orientation.

"The Government must not water down these proposals. We had always feared that Ruth Kelly’s personal beliefs would make her unsuitable to be a champion of gay rights. Unfortunately these fears have become reality and she should now stand down."

The conflict is a difficult one. Gay people should have the freedom not to be discriminated against, but religious people must also have the freedom to express their religious beliefs. How do you satisfy both parties? It seems faith schools are concerned that what they teach about sex may be affected, and Christian B & Bs are worried they’ll have to let gay couples rent rooms. I can understand this, even if I don’t agree with it. People are perfectly entitled to have their own vies on homosexuality, and even to express them. Nevertheless, to deny a black person into a hotel, or a woman to buy groceries simply because of their colour or gender is unacceptable, whatever the views of the people wishing to discriminate against them. There does seem to be a tendency to tolerate discrimination on the ground of sexuality where it wouldn’t be tolerated on other grounds. Imagine, for example, that the government banned black people from marrying. There would be outrage. But gay people can’t get married and yet there’s no outrage at all. We need to work to remove this “tolerance” of discrimination and the new anti-discrimination laws will hopefully go someway to do this. Lorely Burt and Alan Johnson are absolutely right in supporting tough measures on this issue, with no exceptions. We can only hope that Ruth Kelly and Tony Blair are persuaded too.

Prison

There’s been a lot of talk in the news lately about the prison population’s steady increase, and the fact that our prisons are now pretty much full. We have around 80,000 people in prison in this country and though the government is planning to build another few thousand places within the next few years, I just don’t think that this is the solution. Labour are going to give prisoners money (indirectly) if they agree to spend their time in another country and also, in the long-term, increase our prison capacity. The Conservatives want more prisons. The BBC’s Have Your Say is filled with comments like "One strike and you and whoever you brought in with you are out" would seem to be a pretty good deterrent" and “Build more prisons. Put them on uninhabited Scottish islands. Put them on disused tankers 20 miles off shore. Make their lives so miserable, they will never want to go back again. Oh and suspend all but their basic human rights whilest (sic) they are in there.” Not nice stuff basically. The only people that seem to speaking any sense on the issue are the judges and the Liberal Democrats (naturally). While the judiciary can be rather behind the times on a number of issues, I believe that Lord Philips, the Lord Chief Justice, has got it spot on with this one. Here are some excerpts:

“The majority of these young, first-time offenders have not been to prison in the past. The idea that one should send them all to prison is misconceived. I'm concerned about being attacked as "a liberal". I like to think that I am liberal, but that is not the same as being soft on crime. The idea that [using] alternatives to custody is being soft is wrong.”

“Those interventions are rendered difficult or impossible if prisons are as full as now. And emergency measures of keeping prisoners in police cells are highly undesirable.' Are prisons - full of the mentally ill and drug-addicted - simply social dustbins? 'I think they are, to some extent.”

Lord Philips argues for fewer prison sentences, and instead alternatives like community service, curfews and mental or drug-abuse rehabilitation. Many of those who commit crime need help, not punishment. Those who have mental problems need appropriate medical attention; those with drug problems need rehabilitation; those with no education need training and support, and so on. If we just continue to lock people up in increasingly deterioration conditions instead of proving them with help, they will just resent the system and commit crimes again as soon as they are released. It’s very easy to say “lock them all up” but when our re-offending rate is two in three, you have to accept that the easiest solution can’t be the best one. What is needed is a “tougher” solution. Tough because it will take more effort, and will be unpopular amongst a lot of the public. We need to rehabilitate people in prison: if we provide education, support and other forms of rehabilitation, they will be far less likely to re-offend and, in the long run, this saves the country money. We also need to stop sending people to prison as a first resort: where possible, we need to use things like community service and the other measures Lord Philips suggested. I know this sounds like being “soft” on crime but there are two key principles behind my views on this:

• We need to remember that not all people in prisons are there because they are “bad” people who need to be locked up. Many have been failed by society, failed by their family, have had disadvantages and problems we can’t imagine, and who need help. We cannot ignore those in need, even when they have committed crimes. They are people too.


• Rehabilitation works! It will help to reduce re-offending rates and this means that the government will save money, and people will be safer. It may sound soft, but it will actually improve people’s lives.

South Suffolk

UK Polling Report has produced a pretty amazing guide to the constituencies at the next election. Politics and statistics are two of my great loves and so this guide is providing hours of fun! The boundaries across England have been looked at and revised, and this new guide takes all these changes into account and estimates how the seats would have gone at the last election with the new boundaries. Obviously, I’m most interested in my own constituency, South Suffolk, currently Conservative.

Party	Result in 2005	Notional Result in 2005 with New Boundaries
Conservative	42.0% (20,471)	42.1% (20,569)
Liberal Democrats	28.5% (13,865)	28.4% (13,903)
Labour	24.5% (11,917)	24.5% (11,972)
UKIP	5.0% (2,454)	5.0% (2,461)

As you can see, the boundary changes have hardly affected my constituency at all. Each party gets a few more votes and the Lib Dems’ vote shares drops a tad. In all honesty I don’t think we’re going to win the seat. The Tories have won the seat every election since its creation in 1983 and given that the Tories are doing better in the opinion polls (and the Lib Dems doing not so well) I imagine the Tories will get an increased vote share in 2009, or whenever the election will be held. It’s a shame really: my part of Suffolk is a toss-up between the Tories and the Lib Dems at a local level, but the Tories always do better at general elections. Our local candidate, Kathy Pollard, is a good one (though Mum’s not too fond of her) and I think she’s do a good job as an MP.

I have no idea who’ll win the next election. I don’t think anyone does. All the polls seem to suggest that it’ll be a hung Parliament and I suspect that that’s what might happen. It’s like the nation doesn’t want Labour in power any more, but it’s not really sure that it wants the Tories back in either. That should be good news for us Lib Dems, but we’re not doing so well in the polls at the moment. Ah well... we've got another three years to boost our numbers.

The Amazing Mrs Pritchard

I don’t watch an awful lot of TV here in Utrecht. The BBC offers a fair few of their programs for download and so I watch the news, Question Time, Newsnight, that kind of thing. But last night I made the long walk down to the kitchen and actually watched some telly. Why? Because of the Amazing Mrs Pritchard. I’d seen some trailer when I was back at home and thought that it was worth a watch. I actually really enjoyed it: the idea that one person can really make a difference, can really inspire other people to shake things up is inspirational. The acting was great (especially Jane Horrocks’); the cameos by various politicians and journalists was effective (though almost every drama nowadays seems to feature a spoof Newsnight feature) and it was easy-watching. It raises the question of whether this could actually happen in real life. Could the public be persuaded to support a brand new political party enough to vote it into government? Each political party has those loyal to it; there will be people who will vote Labour, for example, whoever the candidate is and whoever the leader of the party is. But people loyal to one party for their whole lives are a dying breed; 30-odd percent of the electorate don’t bother voting at general elections; and of those who do vote, a vast amount are floating voters. The majority of the county probably don’t identify with one particular political party enough to remain loyal to it for life. Mrs Pritchard was a woman who appealed to this majority; her desire to end the lies and spin of politicians struck a cord with the electorate and they voted for her in overwhelming numbers. But could this ever really happen in real life? I’m not so sure. It’s a fantastic idea that a person, plucked from obscurity could be taken to heart by the electorate, but I think it’s a fantasy. That’s not to say that independent candidates shouldn’t stand in elections: anyone who wants to represent their constituency in Parliament should be encouraged to do so but at the end of the day people vote at elections, by and large, on the policies of the candidates and their parties, and there’s no real policy on which the whole country is agreed upon. Only entirely uncontroversial things like opposition to slavery would be supported by the country as a whole. But on the issues which people vote on at election time: the economy, education, health, foreign affairs, and so forth, there’s just no agreement by the people as a whole. Some will want higher taxes, other lower; some will support privatisation of parts of the NHS, others will oppose and so forth. Ros Pritchard and her Purple Alliance seemed to offer no policies whatsoever except to make a stand against the current political system and to encourage politicians to take “real” people seriously. That’s not a manifesto. No party could ever get elected to power on such a weak platform. I guess that was the weakness of the show. As you watch the show, you think to yourself “this is amazing; a total shake up of the political system… could this really ever happen?” but you quickly realise that no, it couldn’t, and so the show loses something. Nevertheless, it was entertaining and I’m interested to see where the show goes.