Filibustering could hasten Lords reforms

One of the most short-sighted things about Labour's filibustering in the Lords is the long-term damage that it could do to the current structure of the Upper House. Unlike in the Commons, there are no mechanisms to restrict the length of debates in the Lords. This means that there is a risk of filibustering, but until now this has not been a problem because it was seen as poor form. It goes against the general intention of the Sailsbury Convention of 1945, which gave the Commons primacy and acknowledged that the Lords did not have democratic legitimacy.

I happen to think that, despite being obviously anachronistic and undemocratic, the Lords plays a very positive role in our legislative system. But it cannot continue as it is if the opposition party in the Commons uses its peers to filibuster Government legislation. By breaking convention Labour's actions necessitate the creation of new rules limiting debates in the Lords. And by raising the topic of reform in one area, people will naturally start to look more widely at the way the Lords operates. 

Johnson's resignation: good or bad for Miliband?

I have long argued that Labour could make life a lot harder for the Tories if they put Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper in the Shadow Chancellor's role. Now that Balls is there, expect him to make the brief his own and really push Osborne on every decision. While the Conservatives will no doubt mock Balls's closeness to Gordon Brown and lambast Miliband for his decision to hire Johnson for a job he was never suited for, after a couple of weeks this will die down and the Tories will be left facing someone who is ruthless and totally on top of his brief.

But while it's not good news for the Tories, and it definitely is good news for Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper - who will no longer be wasted shadowing William Hague - I'm not too sure that it's good news for Ed Miliband. He didn't put Balls into that role for two reasons: they have different ideas about what Labour's economic policy should be, and Miliband thought Balls would become too powerful as Shadow Chancellor. Both of these problems still exist.

Ed Balls has a different economic agenda to Miliband. It was evident in the leadership election and it is still there now. Miliband clearly had problems controlling Johnson as well, but Balls is different because unlike Johnson, he actually has a plan of action and knows what he's doing. Johnson was never really a threat even when he disagreed: Balls could be. It's not surprising that Balls has said that he is fully supportive of Darling's deficit reduction plan, because he has to show that they're on the same team. But he will deviate soon enough.

Balls is convinced his economic approach is right, and won't be worried by Tory attacks on Labour for being unwilling to tackle the deficit. Public support for that is falling anyway, and Miliband's half-hearted attempts at moderation will disappear. 2011 will not just see the pressure increase on the coalition: there will be equally as much pressure on the Labour Party to oppose cuts everywhere: across every department and across every county. Balls will heed all these calls, and Miliband won't have the political clout to stop him.

But this isn't necessarily a bad thing for Labour. The two worked closely for a long time under Gordon Brown and will have seen the chaos that was his relationship with Tony Blair. They will work hard to avoid that happening again. Even if Miliband is initially weakened personally, the Labour Party as a whole will undoubtedly be strengthened by having a competent Shadow Chancellor in the midst of the most dramatic changes to Government in over a decade. And that in turn will strengthen Miliband's claim that the Labour Party has a plausible, alternative agenda to the Coalition and that they can win in 2015. 

Oldham East and Saddleworth tells us nothing new

As exciting as by-elections are, this one didn’t really tell us anything new. Labour has been steadily climbing in the polls from around 30% at the election to around 42% now, and it was always likely that they would perform better than they did in May. That the big 17% leads suggested by opinion polls before the election never materialised was expected, but a win of 10% was exactly the kind of result that Ed Miliband needed in order to calm his Party’s nerves.

Senior figures like Miliband and Yvette Cooper have stressed that while it gives Labour some momentum, the Party has a long way to go before it is in a position to win a general election. They are right to be cautious. The polls suggest that Miliband is not regarded as a great prospect and while people are now less certain that the coalition’s economic policies are the right ones, they still don’t believe Labour would be any better.

It’s also important to note that despite Labour’s claims to the contrary, this wasn’t necessarily a vote against the coalition’s economic agenda: if you add the Conservative and Lib Dem vote share it comes to 44.7%, which is more than Labour’s 42.1%.

The Lib Dems actually gained a larger share of the vote than in May: up from 31.6% to 31.9%. This was probably because of tactical voting by some Conservatives, but their effective and determined local campaign does show that the Party is still alive. Clegg will be relatively satisfied that his Party avoided a bigger defeat, and while he’ll be afraid that May’s local elections will be unpleasant, he’ll also argue that national poll ratings that have them around 10% are likely to mean nothing at the next election.

The Conservative high command will be satisfied. They decided a long time ago that this by-election was not one that they could win and that it served the long-term health of the coalition better if the Lib Dems came through unscathed. They’ve achieved this aim. Their only worry will be that their weak campaign in Oldham will simply encourage those backbenchers who are concerned that the coalition panders to the Liberal Democrats. Baroness Warsi has, perhaps unwisely, told them to shut up and stop whining, but there is little chance of that happening.

Left-wing blogs take their cue from Miliband's HQ

Proof, if any were actually needed, that the left-wing of the blogosphere is boring and incapable of criticising Labour came this week in a piece in the New Statesman. In it, Dan Hodges makes it clear that left-wing blogs take their cue from Ed Miliband's team. I've written before (here and here) about the curious inability of left-wing blogs to criticise Labour, and argued that in the long term it does them and the Labour Party no good, because they are throwing away their credibility.

It's a real shame that this state of affairs exists, because blogs like Political Scrapbook have so much potential. But instead of being independent left-wing blogs have chosen to take their lines from Labour HQ: and the contrast with the Conservative side of the blogosphere could not be more apparent. Attempts to 'spin' the blogosphere are so transparent and really counter-productive. I genuinely hope that these blogs stop essentially working for Miliband and start arguing independently for their left-wing opinions, because that's a whole lot more interesting than just being Miliband's mouthpiece. 

Poll overload before by-election

A new ComRes poll has given Labour an 8% lead over the Conservatives, and is sure to dominate the early news tomorrow. While it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt it does reflect a general shift in the headline polls towards Labour. The Tories have been around 40% or so for a few months now (see UKPR average taken on 6th Jan - right) and they’ve just started to drop away in a few polls but given the margin of error this can’t yet be seen as a definite trend. Labour, on the other hand, has climbed steadily, from their 30% figure back in June to around 40% now.

Yet I think there needs to be a note of caution in the way Labour reacts to these figures. Most polls over the past month have had Labour and the Conservatives essentially level pegging around 40%, with Labour maybe slightly in front. Their figure of 42% fits the trend, but as yet the drop in Tory support to 34% does not. This is especially true because recent polling has indicated that Cameron is still widely regarded as a better PM than Ed Miliband, and that the Tories are trusted more on the economy.

It’s also dangerous for Labour to get its hopes up too much before the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election. I believe polls suggesting that Labour has a 17% lead over the Liberal Democrats will prove to be inaccurate. Labour will win, but it won’t be by that margin. And don’t forget: these figures all suggest Labour should win handsomely, and expectations have increased to match. Ed Miliband will now be in real danger of losing what little confidence his backbenchers have in him if he fails to pull off a convincing victory.

Left-wing blogs still can't criticise Labour

Guido Fawkes has written today about the widespread failure of left-wing blogs to be critical of the Labour Party. He contrasts them with Conservative blogs, which he claims are generally all unafraid of being critical of the Tories.

Fawkes is absolutely right and it’s a point I’ve made in a blog post before. Their silence is deafening: it couldn’t be more obvious that they aren’t commenting on controversial issues within their own party. It also couldn’t be more pathetic. But why can't they do it? Do they lack the courage or the willpower to criticise Labour? Do they not think there is anything to criticise?! Whatever the answer, the result is that they come across as intellectually weak.

The real kicker is that they are undermining themselves. Because readers know that whatever the truth of a situation, these blogs will always write the same story. And in the end that means that people won't listen to what they have to say about the Government. Which means that they won't enhance the Labour Party's message because no-one who isn't a fully paid-up Labour member will be interested in what they are saying.

So for their own sakes, for Labour's sake, and for the sake of a better political blogosphere, I hope these sites start to look critically at Labour instead of just attacking the Government.

p.s. Another interesting part of the expenses saga is that no politician of any hue has sought to make political capital from David Chaytor’s imprisonment. It’s not even being used by Elwyn Watkins in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election. It's pretty clear that Westminster would like the story to go away as quickly as possible.

Marginalising the Lib Dems

There has been a definite change in tone since Ed Miliband brought Bob Roberts (L) and Tom Baldwin (R) onto his staff. One of the most visible changes has been the decision to switch from using the word 'coalition' and replace it with the new phrase 'Tory-led government'. This is designed to shift the focus from the coalition's 'alliance in the national interest' and onto the fact that this Government has a Tory majority and that they are responsible for its policies.

Ironically, this is also the new policy of many Tory backbenchers. As I have mentioned before, they are concerned that any popular policy the coalition proposes is credited to the Lib Dems, in order to improve their image, prop up their poll ratings and in turn reinforce the coalition. So it seems that despite the dawning of an age of 'new politics' and coalition, our democracy is still based on two main parties looking to marginalise the Liberal Democrats. How reassuring. 

Decision Time: Ed Miliband can't have it both ways

Ed Miliband wrote an article in the Times today that demonstrates perfectly why Labour do not yet scare the coalition. He started by saying that "In their politically motivated desire to propagate a myth about the last Labour Government, they [the Tories] are ignoring the real lessons of the global financial crisis."

Miliband goes on to say that the Conservatives' "deceit is that the deficit was caused by chronic overspending rather than a global financial crisis that resulted in recession and a calamitous collapse in tax revenues."

Ah! I see. So chronic overspending wasn't an issue or didn't exist. Obviously the answer to the current situation is not to cut spending but to stimulate the economy in order to get tax income back to pre-crash levels, right?

Erm, no. "The real debate is not about whether or not to cut the deficit: Labour has been clear that we need to reduce borrowing from levels that are far too high." Oh, so there is a problem with the amount of money that the Government spends? Now I'm confused.

Ed Miliband is trying to have it both ways. He wants to say that the cuts are bad. But he also knows what this graph (above) from the Spectator shows: that Labour spent more than it received every year after 2002. And so he wants to show that he understands the need for cuts to be made, because apparently voters like that. So he ends up in the middle, opposing Conservative cuts while arguing that cuts need to be made.

This is cowardice. It's understandable, but it's still cowardice. It also makes his allegations that the Tories are being politically motivated in their policies totally hollow and hypocritical.

One of the things I admire about this coalition is that it has an aggressive policy to fix the economy that it believes in and that it is seeing through to completion. It is leading public opinion. That takes guts and confidence. Labour is hedging its bets, waiting to see what the public thinks. So Miliband calls the coalition strategy a gamble, and says he "hopes it pays off" but believes it's "an extreme approach.... Mr Osborne is going too far and too fast on the deficit."

He can't have it both ways. And, frankly, he shouldn't be trying to. He'll get no credit in 2015 if he once said that the coalition strategy might work. He should go with his gut and genuinely promote an alternative strategy. What would he do if he was in power? If he wouldn't cut then he should say so. Because if he does believe Osborne's got it wrong then by having a clear and 'less painful' alternative he'll be giving himself a chance to be the leader who has it right in 2015.

Labour members should be concerned by articles like these. These nuanced policies reflect a short-termism that belies a lack of faith in their own economic arguments: If they're not certain that the Tories will get it wrong then they're not certain that their policies will get it right.

As a final point, I can't help but feel that having someone like Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper in the Shadow Treasury role would give Labour's economic policies a lot more purchase. The media would certainly listen more attentively than it does to Johnson. 

'Progressive' argument obscures real threat from inflation

We are four days into 2011 and already I've heard the words 'progressive' and 'regressive' so many times my head is spinning and I'm starting to feel nauseous. Sadly, I can see this being a trend that continues throughout 2011 as Labour seeks to label everything the Coalition does as 'regressive'. 

What's even more upsetting is that the real issue here is being missed. Retailers are going to put up prices by as much as 5% or even 8%. This isn't to make profit, it's to readjust their costs to factor in inflation. These price rises were coming VAT rise or no VAT rise. 

So the real story here is not the tired old tale about the profligate Labour Government and the austere Coalition reducing its deficit, but about the huge risk the UK faces in 2011 from inflation which some economists at the Bank of England fear could see the CPI top 4%. 

4%! And that's just the CPI. The RPI was already at 4.7% in November. So despite recent support for their economic measures from a group of leading economists - who believe that the UK is in for a slow period of growth in 2011 rather than a double-dip recession - the threat of inflation still looms large. It is the most pressing economic problem facing the country, and the Government must start concentrating on finding some way to reduce inflation. 

p.s. If you want to look at whether the VAT rise is progressive or regressive then look no further than this well-researched article by the BBC's Business Reporter Laurence Knight.

2011 is full of opportunity for Ed Miliband

The Ipsos MORI poll that claims Ed Miliband is the least popular Leader of the Opposition since Iain Duncan Smith is not great news for the Labour leader, but it's hardly terminal either.

What the graph (right) shows is that recent party leaders - with the exception of Tony Blair - have all faced difficult periods in the polls. I think Miliband will feel that he has a chance to reform his party in the same way that Cameron has changed the Conservative Party during his leadership. Miliband should be confident that he will follow Cameron's trajectory, and see Labour into the next election in 2015 with a reinvigorated Labour Party behind him.

He'll also - if he actually believes in his key economic message about cuts and it isn't just political expediency - be certain that come 2015 he'll be facing a Conservative Party in government as unpopular as the Labour Party under Gordon Brown. So I don't think Miliband will be too unhappy with these figures. He will be wary, however, of falling below -20, because when that happened to IDS, Hague and Howard they never recovered.

He will also be buoyed by the figures that show 53% of Labour members are satisfied with his leadership. He should be confident of converting some of the 25% of Labour members who 'don't know' (how you can have no opinion is beyond me) into 'satisfied' supporters of his leadership over the coming year.

The overall figures, which show that opinion is split on his leadership, are an opportunity for Miliband rather than a death knell. Electoral politics is all about convincing people that you're right and he still has the time to do it.

Yet if I was Ed Miliband I would still have some serious concerns. I'd be less worried about how I appeared to the country, and more concerned how I appeared to my backbenchers and shadow cabinet colleagues. I'd also be afraid that the absence of concrete Labour policies in many areas would blunt my political attacks. So, in the spirit of Christmas, in anticipation of an exciting 2011 and in the hope that the opposition will force the government to raise its game, here are five suggestions to get Miliband's leadership moving in the right direction:

1. Ed Miliband must improve his PMQs performances in the New Year. Whatever he is doing now isn't working. If he does this he will begin to convince his backbenchers that he can actually compete nationally with David Cameron.

2. He needs to bring Balls and Cooper closer to his leadership, because at the moment they are not in his inner circle and are just itching to prove themselves better potential leaders. Plus they are in portfolios where, frankly, their talents are completely wasted. One of them at least has to replace Johnson in the shadow Treasury role if they ever want to get close to Osborne.

3. Stop picking on the Liberal Democrats. He claims to want to woo disaffected Lib Dems but he always goes for the easy line in the media or at PMQs and picks on them for some perceived 'U-turn'. Miliband should never forget that the coalition has a Conservative majority, and that they must be his primary target.

4. Choose a few policy areas and ruthlessly demonstrate to the public how the government has taken the wrong options. Eric Pickles' reforms to local government are the most radical changes to the structure of government in the UK in years, and the government has no idea how its localism agenda will turn out. The restructuring of the NHS is potentially disastrous and the changes to education are being very poorly executed. Lansley and Gove should be easy targets for their Labour shadow ministers.

5. Get real distance from the unions. If they are actually serious when they talk of huge coordinated strike action in 2011 then it would be toxic for the Labour leader to get too close. Cameron will be looking to paint Ed Miliband as a union man helping undermine the economic recovery with reckless strikes. He must avoid this. 

Would you join Labour for a penny?

So Labour are offering a 1p membership to anyone under 27. I started writing a post on this the other day but couldn't really be arsed to finish it. And it seems that I wasn't the only one lacking any enthusiasm, because today the Guardian revealed that the offer had brought in just 400 new members.

400 people paid a penny to join Labour, so they could have the honour of having Ed Miliband voice their concerns to the nation. Now, I'm pretty confident that the admin on 400 new members is going to cost more than the £4.00 that Labour have made this week. And that these bargain hunters may prove fickle when they get asked for the full £39.00 next year. It's also made me more certain than ever that Labour's claim to have had 50,000 new members since the election is likely to prove an exaggeration.

I wonder why people didn't take up the offer? Maybe it's because although the 'young' are perceived to be against some of the coalition's policies, they still realise that Labour are not yet a credible alternative. These young people also aren't quite young enough to have missed the fact that Labour were the ones that introduced tuition fees in the first place. And they won't have missed that Labour itself has absolutely no credible policy for higher education. They will also be suspicious that having Ed Miliband as a spokesman isn't necessarily the best thing, given that he can't seem to get any media coverage at the moment and the PLP thinks he's useless.

Which begs the question: why now? A reduced membership rate is a great one-off gimmick that has the very real potential to raise membership numbers. But you have to already have forward momentum. A cheap membership rate when you've no policies, have just been beaten in an election and have a weak new leader will not turn things around. Now they're in an even worse situation, because this poor response has just confirmed to the public that no-one wants to join their party. If they'd done it in three years' time then it could have been hugely successful. But I really think they've jumped the gun. 

PMQs - 10th November 2010

Following the disunity displayed by the PLP on Monday this could have been a very difficult outing for Harriet Harman but her relentless focus on tuition fees left Nick Clegg struggling.

Harman's prepared jokes were excellent and she was on the front foot throughout. She began with a simple question to Clegg, asking if he could update the House on how his plans to abolish tuition fees were going. This brought howls of laughter from the Labour benches. Nick fought back with those tired lines about the deficit and the legacy of the previous government.

She pushed again with a Clegg quote from the election campaign in which he called the prospect of £7,000 fees a 'disaster'. Clegg started to warm up and retorted that the system was fairer than anything under Labour and that it would help part-time students 'shamefully treated' by the opposition.

Labour's Deputy Leader then landed the best line of the exchange about Clegg meeting some 'dodgy bloke' at freshers' week and doing something he'd regret. The backbenches on both sides were laughing now - even William Hague couldn't hide his smirk (see above).

Clegg hit back by arguing that Labour was far from the party of students, pointing out that Labour had introduced tuition fees after opposing them in 1997 and introduced top-up fees after opposing them in 2001. They also set up the Browne Review and now disown its findings. He then asked Harman if she'd be going outside to explain to demonstrating students what her party's policy was.

Then Harman got to the real meat of the debate, and hammered home what should be a central part of their attacks on the coalition. Fee increases for students are not to increase funding for universities, but to cover the money that the government is cutting from universities. 'What is the cut to the university teaching grant?' she demanded.

Nick lost his bearings. He'd been defensive but generally assured until this point but here he started mumbling about the Labour party's plans to make massive cuts, which he couldn't be specific about because Labour don't even know what they are.

Harman came straight back at him, asking if he'd been taking lessons from the PM on how not to answer questions. She said the cuts to the university teaching grant were a 'staggering 80 per cent' and that the government had 'pulled the plug' on university funding. By now Clegg's responses were incoherent, as he said something generic about being progressive and fair.

Labour's Deputy Leader finished by mocking the Lib Dems' pre-election pledges. Clegg then tried to cram in a joke about the PLP's Mutiny Monday, but it was way too late and totally off topic. He looked completely lost, complaining that before the election he didn't know how bad things would be in government after Labour.

It was a big surprise to see Clegg so weak in debate, given that it's supposed to be one of his strong points. He didn't really land a single attack on Labour, and his Mutiny Monday joke was deployed out of desperation. Harman, on the other hand, was assured and relentless in her attack on the Lib Dems leader. In truth she has an easier time attacking the Lib Dems than Miliband has with Cameron, because they are so vulnerable on the compromises the are making. Even so, she defeated Clegg with some panache yesterday, matching excellent prepared jokes and quotes with points of real substance.

Solid Harman win. 

Tory ambitions in Oldham East by-election

Obviously we won't know until Monday if there will be a by-election in Oldham East and Saddleworth, but it seems as if the Tories fancy their chances and are already looking to steal the seat away from both Labour and the Lib Dems. 

Baroness Warsi - whose job title appears to be Party Chairman with special responsibility for relentlessly attacking the opposition - has come out and said that the Conservatives will field a candidate and will not stand aside for the Lib Dems. 

The Lib Dem candidate who brought the action against Labour's Phil Woolas, Elwyn Watkins, lost by only 103 votes. The Conservative Party candidate, Kashif Ali, was a further 2310 votes back. See the table below:

So do the Tories really have a shot at winning this seat?

First impressions would be yes, because in May this election was a three horse race, and it is conceivable that if Ali stands again and runs a good campaign he could take 1000 votes from Watkins and 1000 from Labour and win. 

But on closer inspection there is much for the Tories to be wary of here. The swing towards the Conservative candidate was a huge +8.7 per cent at the last election. He would have to not only maintain this but improve on it to win.

Much of that swing was at the expense of Phil Woolas, the Labour candidate and a former Home Office minister, who suffered a -10.7 per cent swing. He will (almost certainly) not be standing again in the by-election. Instead there will be a new Labour candidate, who will distance themselves from Woolas and the previous government. 

They will also benefit hugely from Labour being out of power and in opposition. There is no groundswell of anti-Labour - and perhaps as importantly, anti-Brown - sentiment like there was in May. Expect the new candidate to be very much part of Ed Miliband's 'new generation'.

The issue is complicated by the Lib Dems' poll ratings, which have crashed since the election in May from around 27 per cent to a paltry 11 per cent. This suggests that the Lib Dems will do very badly. It would obviously be premature to write them off, but I think that Elwyn Watkins will struggle to achieve 31.6 per cent of the vote again. This, of course, means that there are disaffected Lib Dem voters that can be targeted by Labour and the Conservatives. 

So what are their chances? The national political issues clearly favour Labour in opposition, and looking at the results in neighbouring constituencies I think Ed Miliband has every reason to be confident. This is a seat that will be receptive to Labour's messages about cuts and the government attacking the poor. Oldham East and Saddleworth is at the eastern edge of a belt of solidly Labour seats stretching over from Manchester to Liverpool, and just to the west of a block of solid Labour seats in the Midlands and Yorkshire. Phil Woolas has been the Labour MP there since the seats' inception in 1997. 

The seat was created in 1997 by merging an Oldham constituency, which had a strong Labour past, with Saddleworth, which since its creation in 1983 had been both Tory (12 years) and Lib Dem (2 years). Since 1997, the Conservatives have never polled higher than the 26.4 per cent Ali achieved in May. 

Furthermore, the collapse in Lib Dem support is because of the coalition. It is reasonable to suggest that the 11 per cent of people still supporting the Lib Dems are happy with the coalition and positive towards the Conservatives. Even so, they will likely vote Lib Dem in this by-election. If local politics mirrors national politics then the 16 per cent of Lib Dem voters who have lost faith in the party nationally will not likely vote Conservative, as it is the alliance with that party which has caused them to become disillusioned. Lib Dem voters are likely, if they move, to move towards Labour. 

So looking at the local history of the seat and its surrounding area, the likely effects of the collapse in Lib Dem support, and how receptive the locals will likely be to the Labour message of government cuts, it will be hard for the Tories to win this seat. It is Labour's seat to lose. 

As an interesting final point, it is not hard to see why Woolas felt that campaigning on immigration and alleging his opponent was soft on Islamic extremism could prove a successful tactic. In 2001 the seat gained notoriety when the BNP candidate Michael Treacy won over 5,000 votes, an 11.2 per cent share. Despite being right-wing, the BNP tend to do well in Labour areas rather than Conservative ones, which again points to the difficulty the Tories will have winning this seat. 

Prisoners, Europe and the Right to Vote

I would like to make two points. The first is about the law, and the second is about the man who's brought about our current impasse. 

The current legal situation is messy. On the one hand, you've the law passed by Parliament which removes the right to vote from prisoners. On the other, the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights which said that this law was superseded by another law the UK signed up to, the European Convention on Human Rights. This plays into a much larger - and for the coalition government, potentially very toxic - debate about the UK's role in Europe and the effect of European laws on our sovereignty. 

UK law currently states (Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983) that "A convicted person during the time that he is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence or unlawfully at large when he would otherwise be so detained is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election."

I think that most people in this country would agree with that. If you commit a crime and are punished with a prison sentence then, for the duration of that sentence, you lose some of your rights, and one of those should be the right to vote. Voting is one of the privileges of being a citizen of a free country. People will certainly be repulsed at the prospect of prisoners voting in their constituencies, and politicians having to court a 'prison vote'. 

The British Courts certainly agreed. In 2001 the High Court ruled that there was a spectrum of opinion of prisoner's votes and Britain fell into the middle. It stated that the country's "position in the spectrum is plainly a matter for Parliament, not the courts." So it deferred to Parliament and the 1983 Act mentioned above. 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) disagreed. In 2004 it said that UK law breached the European Convention on Human Rights, a decision that was upheld on appeal in 2005. It noted that "The removal of the vote... runs counter to the rehabilitation of the offender as a law-abiding member of the community and undermines the authority of the law as derived from a legislature which the community as a whole votes into power." This was based on Article 1, Protocol 3, which states that "The High Contracting Parties [i.e. the UK] shall hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of people in the choice of the legislature."

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like what influenced the judges in Strasbourg was the prospect of an unrepresentative legislature, rather than the prospect of prisoners having their rights infringed. Either way, the upshot was that the court decided that the UK was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

So does the government have to allow all prisoners the vote? Well, maybe not. The debate is nuanced by the fact that the court said that the blanket ban on voting was unlawful. It did not say that a partial ban would be unlawful. This appears to be the line the government is taking. They are naturally very anxious at allowing serious offenders the vote so will seek to stop them from voting while allowing those convicted of less serious crimes the vote. 

Yet this will surely only be a temporary fix. The man who brought this case to the ECHR was convicted of manslaughter and served 25 years. A serious offence. He made it clear today that he believed there was no room for a partial ban, suggesting he is prepared for further legal action. 

So that is the problem. The UK had a very clear position on this matter but, in voluntarily signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights, it muddied the waters by agreeing to a document that flatly contradicts its previous position. 

This leads to the bigger debate about the effect of European laws on the UK and what some perceive as a threat to the UK's sovereignty. It is clearly a part of national law that the legislature - in the UK's case its Parliament in Westminster - is the highest law-making authority. Yet the advent of supra-national structures like the EU and UN have created bodies whose legal decisions are deemed to take precedence over national decisions. 

The issue is all about balance. If we want to be part of these organisations because of the benefits they offer - and we entered the EU and UN voluntarily, just as we signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights voluntarily - then we have to find a way to maintain the sovereignty of our own country at the same time, in order to ensure that our country remains responsive to the needs of its citizens. We must ensure we retain our independence and that other states retain theirs: there is nothing noble in having a homogenised Europe.

So there there is now a legal wrangle going on which is trying to work out the jurisdiction of the ECHR. Because the Human Rights Act of 1998, which forms the basis of the Court's decision, states only that we must "take into account" the decisions of the ECHR. This is vague enough, some argue, to mean that it is not totally binding. On the other hand, a much stronger argument is put by those who point to Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which says "The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgement of the court in any case to which they are parties." 

Yet to really understand why this is such an emotive issue, we have to look at it hypothetically, because the Liberal Democrats believe the 1983 law is wrong. Yet they will not get the chance to challenge it in Parliament. If we step back and re-examine the issue without the revulsion to the edict from Strasbourg we can ask: would the government legislate for change or keep the existing provision? 

I believe that the reason for the outcry is that the answer would most emphatically be NO. I don't believe there is any great movement for change on this issue within the UK and I believe that the 1983 law is an accurate reflection of the wishes of the people this country. 

So without a judgement from a court outside this country there would be no change in prisoner's voting rights. This could become a totemic issue for many who resent the subordination of our Parliament. I expect the Conservative Party backbenchers will make a lot of noise on this issue and I don't see many on the Labour benches opposing them. In fact I'd expect them to agree. 

I also expect people to resurrect calls for a British Bill of Rights, which could seek to insulate the UK from European legislation. Completely un-twining our country from Europe would be very difficult and counter-productive, but creating some sort of legislation that reasserts Parliament's sovereign right to make final decisions on legislation and the right of the UK's legal system to have a final say on the superiority of either European or British legislation is surely possible and overdue. It's all about finding a balance. 

On to my second point. John Hirst is the man who brought the Hirst v UK (No 2) case to the European Court of Human Rights. It is unfortunate for other prisoners that he is an unpleasant man, because they could do with someone who isn't aggressive and totally lacking in remorse to argue their case. This video of his interview with Andrew Neil on the Total Politics programme today reflects that. A more eloquent advocate would have a much better chance persuading people to support his cause. 

PMQs - 3rd November 2010

Today's outing was totally lacking in direction - Ed Miliband appeared not to know which topic to ask questions about. Problem was that Cameron didn't get into a groove and made some odd jokes which didn't really land in return. Ed started with two questions on Yemen and the recent terrorist plot involving cargo flights into the UK, which were interesting, but lacked a cutting edge as he was just asking for information.

He then switched to Tuition Fees, which was today's big news, and asked two questions about that. First how the government was going to balance its commitment to build trust in politics with election promises not to raise tuition fees and secondly, and much more effectively, by pushing at the Lib Dems by questioning how this policy would go down in Sheffield (Nick Clegg), Twickenham (Vince Cable) and Eastleigh (Chris Huhne).

Cameron wasn't in full flow at this point at all. He came up with some weak line about how the policy would create strong, well funded, and independent universities before making a very lame joke about the 'Milibandwagon', which didn't even make sense. But he picked up, accusing Ed Miliband of breaking his word by going back on the Labour manifesto and asking the Labour leader to join the consensus on university reform and stop playing games.

But then Miliband again switched direction and asked if, in a time of austerity, it made sense for the PM to put his personal photographer on the civil service payroll. He made his best attack of the afternoon with a gag about the photographer 'doing a nice line in airbrushing' (which was hilarious) next to his worst line, a rehash of the old 'I ask the questions' from four weeks ago.

This got Cameron a bit flustered, and he responded by saying that Ed Miliband hadn't got any answers, which didn't make sense as he'd asked him a question about his photographer and this is Prime Minister's Questions. He rolled out some figure (£5oo million) as an example of how much Labour spent on communications in government, and then proceeded to talk about how Miliband was dodging the debate on Tuition Fees.

The debate ended with Miliband pushing on the photographer and accusing the PM of causing Broken Britain by breaking his promises on VAT, Child Benefit and Tuition Fees. Cameron pulled out one of his better lines by accusing the Labour leader of being opportunistic, full of 'lame soundbites', against everything and for nothing.

What I don't understand is why Miliband didn't push further on Tuition Fees. He could have raised a cheer from his backbenches with a line about the poor being squeezed out, or about the rich being able to pay up front and avoid debt, but he didn't. In a way it helped, as the photographer joke was his best of the exchange and salvaged it for him, but it was a pretty directionless performance against a Cameron who was not on top form and really could have been beaten today.

A score draw.

Analysing PMQs - How to win

The simplest way of looking at the new, developing relationship between David Cameron and Ed Miliband is to watch PMQs. Every Wednesday, the two leaders face off against each other in what is the most entertaining weekly part of our political cycle. But how exactly do you 'win' PMQs? What exactly is PMQs for? And what does the public really gain from these brief encounters? I'll be looking at these three questions separately, and in this blog post focussing on how politicians 'win' PMQs.

There are two important aspects to PMQs. The first is style. The second is substance. The most important thing to remember is that you don't have to win on both. Winning, or losing, one of them by a large enough margin will negate the other. So when Gordon Brown slipped up and said he 'saved the world', instead of 'the economy', he lost PMQs on style. It didn't matter what points of substance he raised in response to Cameron's questions. The Commons was in uproar, the debate was lost, and tomorrow's headlines had been written.

Ed Miliband's first performance was also judged on style. He managed to make Cameron seem patronising. Miliband's quip that 'despite being new to this, I'm pretty sure that I ask the questions' flooded the Labour benches with relief - that he (and, in electing him, they) wasn't going to screw up - and a belief that he could compete with and beat Cameron in the future. Yet it was also coupled with a line of questioning which had some substance - on the 'unfair' way Child Benefit is to be withdrawn from higher rate taxpayers.

David Cameron similarly joined style and substance last week when he defended the cap on Housing Benefits. It was an area which could have troubled him, but he was unequivocal in his support for the cap, saying clearly and directly that when the government is prepared to offer £20,000 a year towards rent no family should go without a home, and that to offer more would be unfair on working families that can't afford to live in those areas. He combined this policy defence with a joke about a leaked Labour document advising Ed Miliband on how to plan for PMQs: 'He's got a plan for PMQs but not for the economy.'

Winning purely on substance is rarer. In fact it is really impossible because delivery in such a charged environment will always be important and so a certain amount of style becomes a necessity. What is possible is to win on substance without landing a killer joke or getting your troops excited. But this actually comes across as a failure, because if you're winning on substance and fail on style you're missing an open goal. Without his jokes at Ed Miliband's expense, David Cameron's efforts defending the Housing Benefit cap would have ended in a draw with the Labour leader, not a victory. That this joke was a gift from Labour rather than of the Tories' own making shows how the substance of the Housing Benefit debate is yet to be won convincingly.

So to win PMQs it really is important to have both a good style and some substance to what you are saying. It is more common to win on style, because the highly pressured 20 minutes where the two leaders face one another is not really a conducive arena for serious policy debate. In the end, both sides usually attack each other's policy positions (which are mostly entrenched and will not change on the basis of one PMQs) with style not substance, hoping to land jokes and jibes that rally their supporters.

Over time, you would look to make your tactical victories part of a larger narrative. This is what Ed Miliband was trying to do by asking simple questions and provoking Cameron's faux indignation and condescending answers. He want's to present the PM as arrogant to the public. That's what he's doing to win on style. To win on substance over time he's seeking to hammer home his key message about the unfairness of the Coalition's spending plans. That's why he focussed on Child Benefit and Housing Benefit.

Cameron, on the other hand, is seeking to win on substance by making the most of Labour's ambiguous (at best) policy positions, and to keep reminding everyone that Labour put the country in this position. This is linked to personal attacks on Ed Miliband as both a union appointee, and as the author of Labour's election manifesto. Both could prove very damaging to Ed Miliband if they stick. These overall narratives are possibly the most important parts of the debates, because the generalised caricatures of the leaders are what filters down to the majority of the public, who are turned off by the weekly 'Punch and Judy politics' of PMQs.

Tony Blair famously remarked in A Journey that PMQs were the most nerve-racking part of being Prime Minister, and that he still gets nervous every Wednesday in anticipation. That such a capable politician and debater as Blair should say that about PMQs demonstrates how difficult they are to navigate, and how hard they are to 'win'.

Shadow Cabinet - Reaction

I think putting Alan Johnson into the Shadow Cabinet role was a pretty shrewd move by Red Ed. He's already said he broadly agrees with Darling's deficit reduction plan, which chimes with Ed's position. Furthermore, it keeps Ed Balls away from the job, and ensures that Balls doesn't become some Gordon Brown figure circa 2000, formulating his own economic policy independently of the leader. Given how off piste Balls' message on the deficit is that's an own goal avoided for Labour.

Yet this is by no means a great shadow cabinet, and it certainly doesn't chime with Ed's call to a 'new generation' given the prominence of Balls, Cooper, Johnson, and Harman, as well as other former ministers like Hain, Burnham, Flint and Benn.

I doubt the Tories will be unduly worried with this cabinet. They already know how difficult what they are trying to do is and they have just had a pretty successful conference period. They'll be more focussed on getting the Spending Review announcements sorted for later this month. That said, Theresa May will probably be a little concerned at facing off against Ed Balls, given his reputation. I can't wait to see Caroline Flint square off against Eric Pickles. That will definitely be entertaining!

Red Ed wins

Wow. 50.65% to 49.35%. And almost all on the union votes. Is that a mandate to lead? I guess it couldn't be much more different than Brown's coronation! They'll hope it'l end differently as well...

BBC Labour Election Video

Compelling...

Rap of the year?

This is great.

Hat-tip Political Scrapbook.