Why Andrew Smith MP won't win votes by being a rebel

Why your MP won't win votes by being a Rebel

A Review of 'The Rebels' by Philip Cowley, Politico’s, £8.99.

What do you really want from your MP?

1. Would you prefer him or her to be independent-minded or a party poodle?
   
2. Do you want him or her to be involved with the big national issues of the day or to do something about the rubbish bags at the bottom of your street?

I’ll bet you opted for the first of the two options. If so, you have a funny way of expressing your wishes. The Rebels is a fascinating book by the political academic Philip Cowley, to be published soon, explodes some myths about independent MPs. Conventional wisdom has it that the era of the brave politician who voted with his conscience has been supplanted by the career politician who does what he is told.

As usual, conventional wisdom couldn’t be more wrong. There has been a dramatic revival in backbench independence, not a decline. Parliament has become more of a constraint on Government, not less.

In the 1950s, there were two years in which not a single Conservative MP defied the party whip. In other words, in every single vote, there was complete unanimity among the Government’s backbenchers. But perhaps Blair could afford to let MPs rebel because of the size of his massive majority ever, which allowed MPs in the 2001-05 Parliament to be the most rebellious since the Second World War. And the Iraq revolts were the largest mutinies of any governing party on any policy for more than 150 years.

You might think that voters would reward MPs who showed a spirited defiance against unpopular government measures. Indeed, many Labour MPs justified their defiance on these grounds. As one whip put it to Cowley: “Geraldine Smith believes the people of Morecambe will vote for her. They won’t vote for Tony Blair; they don’t trust or like Tony Blair. But they trust and like her. She thinks that by being seen as an independent spirit, she’ll save herself.”
Smith did keep her seat, but still suffered a swing against her.

In aggregate, Cowley found that Labour rebels did no better at the polls in the last election than their compliant colleagues. And the definitive Nuffield election study by John Curtice found that rebellions on Iraq, foundation hospitals and the prevention of terrorism made not the slightest difference to their vote. Only a mutiny on top-up fees helped a Labour candidate, and then by just three quarters of a percentage point.

What does seem to garner votes, by contrast, is an assiduous focus on local issues. Liberal Democrats have known this for years, and the party’s brand of “pavement politics”, which used to be derided by the two main parties, has now been taken up by Labour and, even more, the Tories.

Conservative Central Office, at the beginning of the last Parliament, made sure that target seats selected candidates early and got them working on the gripes that mattered most to local voters. Thus Justine Greening, the winner in Putney, started a campaign against night flights and wrote to 2,500 residents about what she was doing. It paid off.

Greg Hands, who gained Hammersmith and Fulham, fought the seat as if he were standing for the local council rather than Westminster. His leaflets said nothing about the economy or foreign policy. But he did promise an extra two carriages on the Edgware Road branch of the District Line and to deal with the rubbish blackspots around North End Road.

One Lib Dem MP admitted to me recently: “I always rush to any local meeting opposing a new phone mast even though I know that the people there have probably just bought the new 3G phones that make the mast necessary.”

So, if MPs have sold out, it’s not because they are prepared to support a national policy which they deplore; it’s because they will back any local grievance that might win them an extra vote.
Is that really all you want from them?

The Rebels by Philip Cowley, Politico’s, £8.99

Do you agree with this conclusion? And is Andrew Smith MP following this strategy?

German Election Comment

The East-West Ballot Divide

Fifteen years after German reunification, voters in the former east still poll differently to the those in the west. But their collective power at the ballot box was not enough to secure a majority.

Across much of the eastern part of Germany, Gerhard Schröder and his Social Democrats did better than any other party. And that, even in light of the raging levels of unemployment which is twice as high as in the west, and the widespread disdain for the SPD's reform package.

In the area between the Baltic coast and the state of Thuringia, Schröder's party emerged with almost 30 percent of the vote, compared to the meager 34.3 percent it achieved at a federal level -- the party's worst result in the past five decades of election history.

The Christian Democrats and the Left party equalized in the east with 25.9 percent of the vote each, in a result which was widely expected.

Left party hit in eastern Germany

The Left party, formerly the PDS, itself the successor party to the Communist SED, draws the majority of its support from the former east. Under the leadership of Gregor Gysi, who campaigned on a platform of greater opposition to social reform, the Left party garnered a total of 8.7 percent of the federal vote.

"It’s the best result ever," said Stefan Liebich, head of the Left party in Berlin. And in the capital that was certainly true. The Left party scored 29.5 percent in the former eastern part of the city, compared to just 7.2 in the west.

The Greens, who now have fewer seats in the Bundestag than the Left party, were clearly more popular with voters in the western part of the country, where they won 9 percent of the vote, double their 4.4 percent achievement in the east. In Berlin the east-west divide was 10.9 and 15.7 percent respectively.

Western electorate votes conservative

The results for the Christian Democrats and their Bavarian sister party, the Christian Socialist Union (CDU/CSU) in Berlin were a very different story. The union, which doesn't enjoy a massive following in the former east, picked up 27.9 percent of the ballot in the western part of the city, but just 13.6 percent in the east.

And at a federal level, voters in the East seemed to prefer the current poor record of the SPD to a largely uncertain future with potentially more social reform at the hands of the conservatives.

But that was not the only swaying consideration. During the heated election campaign, CSU leader, Edmund Stoiber made comments which damaged the party's chances of convincing an already skeptical eastern electorate.

Stoiber's critical contribution

In an address to a group of supporters and reporters some weeks ago, the state premier for Bavaria said, "I do not accept that the east will again decide who will be Germany's chancellor. It cannot be allowed that the frustrated determine Germany's fate."

The comment was met with anger from voters in the eastern camp and it was left up to Angela Merkel, herself from the former east, to clean up the mess. But Stoiber didn't stop there. At a rally a short while later, he reiterated his views. "The strong must sometimes carry the weak a bit. That's the way it is... I do not want the election to be decided in the east yet again," he said.

Although the party moved quickly to paste over Stoiber's critical remarks, and initial polls in their aftermath suggested the damage might not have been too monumental, with the results of Sunday's ballot now on the table, it's clear that his comments did nothing to improve the chances of a clear win for the conservatives.

The BBC Coverage of Katrina

Tony Blair is right about the BBC. The corporation's coverage of Hurricane Katrina has indeed been tinged by an unnecessary sense of gloating, as the Prime Minister told Rupert Murdoch.

It is not that BBC correspondents have been inaccurate - although they tended to quote the figure of 10,000 dead, almost certainly an exaggeration, with relish. But, in their reports, one heard a whining undertone, like a bagpipe's drone. How could this have happened in such a rich country? Do the Americans really believe they can sort out Iraq with this in their own backyard? Will they finally learn some humility?

Even if these were legitimate sentiments, the aftermath of a tragedy would be no time to express them. Just imagine, by way of illustration, if, following the tsunami, the BBC had focused on the civil wars of Sri Lanka and Aceh, arguing that victims were, in a sense, reaping what they had sown, since those conflicts had destroyed the infrastructure that relief workers needed. Doing so would have been poor news judgment as well as poor taste. Yet the BBC dwelt endlessly on the deployment of a few hundred Louisiana guardsmen in the Gulf of Mexico.
Especially striking has been the determination of BBC correspondent Matt Frei to hang the blame around George Bush's neck. The officials who had the most direct responsibility for local services - notably the clownish mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin - were reported mainly as articulators of anger against the President, with almost no analysis of their own role.

Well said, then, Prime Minister. But why unload your frustration on Mr Murdoch? It is, after all, up to you to decide whether to renew the BBC's charter. If you really wanted to do something about its ingrained partiality, you could tell them first. Moaning behind the BBC's back to a rival news organisation is both pointless and unmanly.

Fuel Lobby’s protests - do they protest perhaps too much?

There is something about the Fuel Lobby’s planned protests that makes it hard to extend our full sympathy. For one thing, the tactics employed by the fuel protesters are borrowed from the bolshie trade unionists of the 1970s, and will bring great inconvenience to the public and to business. For another, it is by no means clear why farmers and hauliers should feel especially aggrieved by Gordon Brown’s fuel tax regime. Most of the fuel used by farmers is red diesel, a concoction specially devised for them which is taxed at just six pence per litre.

Hauliers do not enjoy a similar concession, but such is the damage wreaked on the roads and the nearby buildings by 44-ton lorries that it is doubtful whether their taxes cover the full cost to the public purse of their activities.

Moreover, there is something to be said for fuel taxes as an efficient way of raising revenue.

Its time for the Unions to modernise or die

Do you agree with the Prime Minister and Chancellor that it is time for the unions to grow up and live in the real world. Both have made it clear that there was no future in a revival of union militancy. To read more http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/Oxford%20Editorial.htm
I would like to hear your views on this and other subjects.
Regards
Nicholas Newman

Re- launch of Oxford Fabian Society

Re- launch of Oxford Fabian Society

To all members of the Fabian Society in Oxford and Oxfordshire:

Meetings of the Fabian Society have been in abeyance for some years and our opportunity to discuss matters of wider political and social issues led by invited speakers, has not been possible, particularly in the absence of the University Fabian Society.
In discussions with the Dartmouth Street Headquarters of the Fabian Society, it was suggested that I explore the possibility of re-launching the Oxford and Oxfordshire Fabian Society. Accordingly the purpose of this message is to ascertain the degree of interest amongst Fabian Society (and possibly other interested) members in such a re-launch.
The points for consideration and views (based on past experience in the Oxford Fabian Society include:
a) Meetings to be held three times each year – in term time perhaps?

b) To invite a distinguished speaker to be met by only 5/6 members (as happened in the past) is both futile and insulting. One proposal would be to circulate members 1 to 2 months in advance and arrange any meeting based only on a firm commitment of attendance by at least 20 (?) members.

c) Venues – Oxford, Headington, Thame to incorporate the requirements of both the City and County members of the Fabian Society?

d) Some sort of small subscription might be necessary, preferably not involving a tedious bureaucratic collection system.

e) Communication with members would be by email and news would be posted on a dedicated page of Oxfordprospect.co.uk at http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/Fabian%20Society.htm I have also provided a Blog site at http://oxfordprospect.blogspot.com/ to enable members to discuss the issues that matter to them.

I would be grateful if you would let me know (by email) your views on this proposal and its attendant details to ascertain whether I should proceed further.

Yours fraternally

Nicholas A. Newman

Chair Greater Headington Labour Party

Editor: Oxfordprospect.co.uk & Headington Forum

Email: editor@oxfordprospect.co.uk

Opinionated journalists are short-changing electorate

Nick Robinson, the BBC's new political editor, said last week that politicians and political broadcasters had become a squabbling couple, and it was time they put their rows behind them.

At the risk of upsetting the neighbours, I think this weekend's revelations about John Humphrys's speaking engagements show there is still plenty to squabble about. It's best not to let it fester. Nick and I debated some of the issues at the Edinburgh TV festival last week in front of an audience of TV journalists and executives. My argument was that much of the reporting of politics helped foment cynicism, apathy and disengagement. It was categorically not my case that politicians are blameless; but the current way in which politics is portrayed on many TV and radio news programmes greatly increases the tendency for voters to turn away from political debate.

Too much political broadcasting on radio and television sees its role not as a mission to explain but as a mission to destroy. In the speech revealed this weekend, Humphrys says the BBC's role is 'to take on' the government. 'That ultimately is what the BBC is for,' he says. The result of this conception of journalists' role is a pernicious culture in which news programmes seek to pit themselves against politicians, rather than to elicit information about policies.

The constant aggression towards every political announcement breeds cynicism about what politics can achieve, and about democracy itself. An effect of this misguided approach is that political broadcasters increasingly take on the role of pontificating and editorialising, instead of doing the mundane but more important job of simply reporting the views and actions of those seeking election. Jon Snow recently said: 'At this election it was completely permissible for political editors, Andrew Marr, Nick Robinson and Adam Boulton, to stop covering the campaign and opine in a way we've never seen before.'

An example of this was Robinson's challenge to the Prime Minister at the launch of Labour's campaign poster which said the Conservatives were planning £35 billion of spending cuts compared to Labour's plans. Robinson shouted at the Prime Minister: 'Can you only win by distorting your opponents' policies?' He went on: 'You know they don't say that ... Less is not a cut. You can't cut money that hasn't been spent.'

Many people shared Robinson's view of the Labour poster. The Tories did. Others thought the poster an accurate description of the Tories' plans. The point is that it is at least arguable whether the poster was right or wrong. The question is whether it is the journalist's role to come to a decision on such a controversy on behalf of viewers and to state as fact that Labour's poster is wrong and a distortion. I think not. We can't vote out the journalist if we don't agree with his views, so it is an abuse to use his position as a reporter to promote them.

Robinson's predecessor, Andrew Marr, said last week that it was now time to take a stand against the opinions-first-facts-later culture that had grown up, and return to straight reporting. But he defended the way that political editors now pontificate in airtime previously given to politicians to communicate. 'I'm only there, and my colleagues are only there, because the politicians can't do it properly for themselves,' he said. That's what military juntas in South America used to say, just after they had stormed the parliament. This macho, self-important journalistic style leads to inaccuracies and distortions, which misinform the public about politics. Where mistakes are made, the cavalier, untouchable attitude of the BBC remains firmly in place.

The new complaints procedure is toothless and slow. Nine months ago Michael Howard quite rightly complained about an abusive Newsnight hatchet job on him. It took until last week for the supposedly independent BBC complaints unit to decide that Newsnight was largely blameless. As Robinson pointed out last week, it is easy to dismiss my criticisms as the shrieks of a former spin doctor, scarred by the daily sparring between broadcasters and political parties. But it is not just spin doctors and politicians who think that citizens are being short-changed by much political coverage.

John Cole, the great former BBC political editor, has lamented the passing of straight reporting of politics, 'What worries me,' he said, is that 'we may have spoiled the public appetite for serious politics delivered comparatively straight. Have we created a public reluctance to make the effort needed for a worthwhile understanding of politics?'

The revelation that one of the BBC's main interviewers charges big bucks to deliver speeches in which he states his belief that all ministers are liars confirms the BBC has a great deal to do to reverse the trend Cole identified.