"The Commonwealth of Britain" - Republican UK Wikibox TL

[powerab]

Over in Anglia the political scene was increasingly fragmenting. Premier Tim Yeo have overseen a dysfunctional coalition of Conservatives and Liberals that had been on the rocks since the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were both raised to the Cabinet.

The Conservatives were led by former Finance Secretary Mark Prisk. Prisk had been hailed across the region for his work in restoring Anglian high streets during the Pickles coalition, through cutting rents and taxes. Prisk ran a traditional Conservative campaign focusing on economic liberalism, and support for business. From the moderate wing of the Tories, Prisk repeatedly ruled out going into coalition with UKIP or the English Democrats. Prisk was hit badly by the growth of the various right wing parties and lost eight seats.

Anglia UKIP was led by rising star Tim Aker. Aker was from the moderate Faragite wing of UKIP and had put a lot of capital into detoxifying the party and presenting his caucus as a Government in waiting. Through this he dropped national issues like Europe and the Monarchy restoration, instead focusing on local policies such as support for motorists and rural areas. The strategy paid off, gaining UKIP four seats, but Aker's abandonment of core issues caused a split in his caucus.

Anglia Labour was still led by the controversial Kelvin Hopkins, interventions both from within the caucus and from national Labour had failed to remove him, Hopkins reformed Anglian Labour as a "working class" movement, specifically targeting working class areas like Luton and South Essex. Hopkins' strategy, coupled with a national move toward Labour gained the party a 7% swing.

As for the mid-level parties, the Liberal Democrats were wounded by the coalition, declining to just 13 seats, the Greens stagnated, focusing on national politics and the BNP, facing stiff competition from UKIP and the English Democrats lost nearly half its seats.

Anglia was notable for the number of minor parties breaking into national politics, the English Democrats have traditionally been strong in Anglia but the Tories and UKIP's move to the left allowed the party to break through and gain five seats. Another minor right-wing party was UK First was formed by a group of four UKIP legislators who had quit the party at protest of Aker's abandonment of Monarchism and Euro-scepticism as major issues. The party hoped to fill the void between UKIP and the BNP. Whilst they didn't make a huge splash, all four legislators managed to hold onto their seats. The Christian Party also made a breakthrough in rural areas, making Anglia the second region (second to London) to elect Christian Party legislators.

After the election there was a mishmash of right wing parties, the English Democrats, UKF and Christians formed a joint Parliamentary group, the "Alliance for Democracy", making them the fourth largest group in the Anglian Parliament. Prisk was eager to avoid bringing any of the reactionary parties into Government and thus offered a grand coalition with Labour and Liberal Democrats, Hopkins initially rejected this but a coup by Labour MPs, fearful of a UKIP/BNP Government, forced Hopkins to accept the coalition

"Robin Page MAP, has resigned from Ukip amid bitter accusations of party mismanagement and a leadership cult. Mr Page's resignation, is a major setback for the Eurosceptic party ahead of Regional elections. "There are accusations of rigged internal elections and tales of Westminter extravagance" he writes in The Daily Telegraph. "In short, Ukip is imploding." Mr Page has accused Tim Aker, who he described as a "Blair-like", of running Anglia Ukip as his personal party. "Tim Aker has managed to get almost complete centralised power of Ukip," he wrote. Mr Page has accused Ukip of losing its way after its MPs jumped aboard Westminster's notorious pay and perks gravy train. "Stories from Westminster suggest that Ukip's MPs have come to love the high life of gravy and status. The party created to fight centralised government, sleaze and corruption has become a parody of itself" he said. Mr Aker has accused Mr Page of not being able to "separate fact from fiction and disappointment from reality". "This diatribe seems to be laced with bitterness, inaccuracy and fantastical misinformation."" - UKIP has been corrupted says Robin Page, Bruno Waterfield, The Telegraph (2009)

 

[powerab]

Images of the Syrian Civil War were gaining more and more public attention

“The media is full of folk pontificating that 'something must be done about' Syria. There’s an implication that it’s been decided that the 'something' involves flying cruise missiles into buildings. Parliament’s recalled and we all look forward to seeing if we’re going to be presented with a dodgy dossier and a refusal to publish the Attorney General’s legal advice (ring any bells?). Yet in the midst of all this, my lot is silent. Vince's identical statement to Ball's aside, there’s been almost nothing said by anyone in the Lib Dems since Howard called for the military aid vote.” - Why the Lib Dems are silent on Syria, Richard Morris, New Statesman (2013)

The Lib Dem contest was quickly forgotten as all eyes began to turn to the Middle Eastern nation of Syria. In 2011, Syrians decided to protest after 14 children were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti . The protests were peaceful to begin with, calling for the release of the children, democracy and greater freedom for people in the country. The government responded and, in March 2011, the army opened fire on protesters, killing three people. The following day, they shot at mourners at the victims' funerals, killing another person. People were shocked and angry at what had happened and soon the unrest spread to other parts of the country. At first, the protesters wanted democracy and greater freedom. But demands grew and the protesters called for President Assad to resign. To which Assad refused. In July 2012, the International Red Cross said the violence in Syria had become so widespread that it was in a state of civil war.

There were still some who hoped all sides could be brought round the table, and a bloody civil war could be avoided

As the civil war escalated across late 2012, calls increasingly grew for the West to provide support to the Syrian opposition. In an annual address to both Houses of Parliament, President Howard called on the Government to provide armoured vehicles and body armour to opposition forces in Syria "to help save lives". Howard called for the Commonwealth to offer millions of pounds in "non-lethal" equipment. This included search and rescue, communications, and disease-prevention materials. Howard said it was a "necessary, proportionate and lawful" response to "extreme human suffering". But some MPs said they feared being drawn into a military intervention. Up to 60,000 people had been killed and 300,000 refugees had fled Syria since the crisis began. UN figures showed that 1.5 million had been internally displaced. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi warned that Syria was "spiralling". Howard told Parliament the Syrian people were in "dire need" of help and the UK could not "look the other way". But many MPs were concerned the Commonwealth was drifting towards military intervention in Syria. Howard refused to rule out the possibility in the future.

“British President, Micheal Howard, has refused to rule out support for military strikes on Syria. Mr Howard spoke amid concerns that strained relations between the US and Russia would come under intense new pressure. He is likely to be pressed on the significance of his saying that Britain did not rule out supporting a UN resolution authorising force. But he was careful to insist that Britain would only act in the event of being handed proof that Assad had used chemical weapons. If this is already a condition the US and France, its main ally in advocating force, would struggle to meet. Howard was also unyielding on his essential argument. To mount military action without UN approval, he declared, would be an "aggression".” - Howard will not rule out a military strike on Syria, Nicholas Watt, The Guardian (2013)

Despite Howard’s considerable foreign policy powers, Parliament still held the power of the purse and he could not send aid to Syria without the support of Parliament. Unfortunately for Howard, Balls wasn’t budging. Balls said Howard's plan would be "a monumental failure of diplomacy" and accused Howard of "making the situation worse". He called for President Assad's offer of negotiations to "be tested to destruction". Secretary Lamb expressed concerns that equipment could fall into the hands of extremists. Labour said the worsening situation was an indictment of the international community's failure to act. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said: "It is right that efforts must now intensify but the key issue is the breadth of these efforts. There are some vital areas where the international community must better coordinate and target its efforts."

Peaceful protests in Syria had slowly escalated to a full-blown civil war

“There has long been cross-party agreement that Britain should do its bit in supporting the region. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition joined together before Christmas. They stood together to say: “The fate of an entire generation of children hangs in the balance. We must all do everything we can to help them.” They also urged other countries to do more. Indeed, the British Government have led the way as the second biggest donor, food for 300,000 people a month across Syria. I pay tribute to the Department for International Development for its work. The British people have also shown immense generosity, donating £30 million. We know that more than 300,000 refugees have fled Syria into neighbouring countries. More than half of them are children. Those who are still trapped in Syria are suffering even greater ordeals that are leaving terrible scars on a generation. There has always been cross-party agreement that the majority of refugees should be supported in the region.” - Yvette Cooper, speaking on the floor of the House of Commons (2013)

Whilst there were some hawks in Labour who wanted more involvement in Syria, Balls himself had sympathy for Howard’s position. But Balls knew there would be an uproar amongst the Greens and Lib Dems if he intervened. The affair demonstrated Ball’s relative weakness, after multiple near collapses of the coalition the end was in sight, Balls couldn’t afford to rock the boat.

Balls' hands were tied by his anti-war coalition partners

The Commonwealth also saw another cultural shock with the death of Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s first woman Prime Minister, Thatcher's role in the Commonwealth had been considerable, a monarchist til the end she had been one of the strongest voices against a republic, she also came out of retirement to serve on the board of the NoEuro campaign back in 2004. Former Prime Minister Thatcher died at the age of 87 after suffering a stroke while staying at the Ritz hotel in central London. George Osborne called her a "great Briton" and President Howard spoke of her sadness at the death. Thatcher was Conservative prime minister from 1979 to 1990. She was the first woman to hold the role. She was to have a state funeral, the first state funeral since Princess Diana and the transition to Commonwealth. The ceremony, with full military honours, would take place at London's St Paul's Cathedral. The union jack above Number 10 Downing Street was lowered to half-mast while Parliament was recalled from its Easter recess. After cancelling planned talks in Paris with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Balls made a statement outside No 10. Balls paid tribute to Baroness Thatcher, saying she ''broke the mould'' and had the ability to ''overcome every obstacle in her path." "I disagreed with much of what she did. I respect what her death means for many, many people who admired her, and I honour her personal achievements.''

Thatcher’s death was a stark reminder of the death of the old Britain, Thatcher was one of the few mainstream politicians to call for a return to a United Kingdom, with her passing that tie to the old ways was broken. Many, especially those on the right saw Thatcher as a hero and a mentor. Despite this Osborne was weary of making political capital of her passing, he knew how toxic Thatcher and Thatcherism was in the key areas he need to win, and his speech on her death was markedly apolitical. This was in stark contrast to UKIP who declared themselves as Thatcher’s true heir. Paying tribute in the Senate, UKIP’s Louise Bours said a young Margaret Thatcher would be more likely to join Ukip than the Conservative Party run by Osborne. Bours described Ukip as "the true inheritors of Thatcher" on European policy. Bours claimed Osborne "couldn't win the next general election" because he could not reach the voters who were attracted by Thatcher.

“Paul Nuttall said on Tuesday his movement was carrying the torch for the late Margaret Thatcher’s views on Europe. Paul Nuttall said he hoped to secure a “large number” of parliamentary seats in Britain in 2014. The party holds no Premierships, but is represented in the British Parliament. "There’s a huge vacuum on the centre-right of British politics today. UKIP could be the catalyst over the course of the next few years for a fundamental realignment of the way politics is structured in Britain. I am leading a movement that is becoming a very successful modern different movement in British politics. My job is to change the entire nature of the national debate,” he added, saying he hoped to alter the way the country was governed. Once dismissed by George Osborne as “a party of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”, UKIP has seen its poll ratings surge to 20 percent. Nuttall wants Britain to leave the EU and to halt what he calls “open-door immigration”. Although UKIP has 51 lawmakers in the 650-member British Parliament, it does not yet have any regional Premiers.” - UKIP claims Thatcher mantle, has vote hope, Andrew Osborne, Reuters (2013)

Nigel Farage fancied himself the heir to Thatcher

What impact did Thatcherism have on the post 1998 Commonwealth? (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (30 Marks)

 

[powerab]

The North West elections were the first test of newly elected Premier Stephen O'Brien, one of the Northern Tory Premiers elected in the 2009 wave. Unfortunately for O'Brien he was unable to form a majority in the North West Parliament, thus the North West went into a period of cohabitation with Labour's Derek Twigg serving as First Minister in coalition with the Lib Dems and supported by the Greens.

Labour were led by North West Transport Secretary Maria Eagle, after incumbent Senate President Beverly Hughes announced she would be retiring. Eagle's policy focus was on improving rail and bus infrastructure in the North West, promising to bring the regions transport "in line with London". The results were disappointing as the party failed to make progress from 2007, losing a seat.

The Conservatives were led by Edward Timpson, heir to the Timpson shoe repair fortune. The Conservative campaign focused on local issues, such as crime and antisocial behaviour, pledging to support young people by crime prevention and apprenticeships. Timpson too ran a stagnant campaign and lost a Senator.

UKIP was led by Orthodox Jewish Rabbi and Salford regional Senator Shneur Odze. During the campaign, Odze came under controversy for refusing to shake hands with women voters due to his religious beliefs, which prohibited physical contact with any woman other than his wife. One of the party's regional Senators resigned in protest. However this controversy didn't dampen the national swing towards UKIP, gaining the party two more Senators.

As for minor parties, the Liberal Democrats declined due to the coalition, the Greens managed to pick up a seat with young voters dissatisfied with Twigg's moderate leadership and the BNP failed to make any improvements on its 2007 result.

After the results were announced the coalition had lost its majority in the Senate, thus they invited the Greens to join the North West's coalition Government.

"Britain’s most high-profile Jewish election candidate has revealed the depth of opposition he faced. Shneur Odze, the Orthodox Lubavitch candidate who stood for Ukip said he had undergone a period of soul-searching. He claimed Jewish voters in some parts of Lancashire, had led a tactical campaign to scupper his chances to become minority leader. “The Senate result was disappointing. We expected to break into second place but came third by a long way. I never take politics personally, but this was very different,” he said. “I don’t care about trolls on Twitter but I had pretty painful attacks from the Jewish community. I searched my conscience. Everybody can’t be wrong. It made me think long and hard about what I was doing. I discussed it at length with my rabbis. I looked at the party’s policies, particularly our immigration policy. In the end, I was actually quite sure of myself. I realised we must be either totally right or totally wrong. I do believe we are right.” The blow has left him considering his political future after months of national and local publicity around his candidacy." - Ukip Charedi claims he lost because of the Jews, Marcus Dysch, Jewish Chronicle (2011)

 

[powerab]

Street parties for Thatcher's death broke out in cities across the Commonwealth

“As the international community learned of Margaret Thatcher's death, a mixed reaction began to emerge. Not everyone was mourning the death of the Iron Lady, who accumulated many opponents during her political reign. Thatcher was as polarising in death as in life, said CBC's John Northcott, who was rounding up online reaction to Thatcher's death. Online, some people started organising parties to celebrate her death, he said. One online site invoked one of Thatcher's quotes, saying, "This lady's not returning" and asked, "How are you celebrating?" Daily Telegraph editor Tony Gallagher tweeted the site was closing comments on all their stories. "Even our address to email tributes is filled with abuse." After the President announced that Thatcher will receive a ceremonial funeral, many complained. An online petition calling for Thatcher's state funeral to be privatised, amassed more than 40,000 signatures before it was closed. Scores of Argentinians posted criticisms of her on Twitter, blaming her for the deaths of 640 Argentine troops.” - Margaret Thatcher's death evokes polarised reaction, CBC News (2013)

Thatcher’s death had polarised people and divides had emerged, many saw a state funeral as rubbing salt in the wounds of those who had suffered under her leadership. In some areas impromptu street parties broke out. People cheered and handed out 'Maggie death cake' at one of several street parties. Videos of the gathering in Leeds were posted on YouTube and shows dozens of people whooping in delight. Crowds chanting: "If you all hate Thatcher, clap your hands." Within an hour of her passing being announced, a public celebration in Brixton, South London broke out. By nightfall it had attracted around 600 protesters. Some attendees were carrying banners, with one saying: "Rejoice, Thatcher is dead." They also opened champagne and cheered, shouting: "Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, dead, dead, dead." One shouted: "Free milk for all." In Glasgow more than 400 people gathered in George Square in the city centre to hold the impromptu party. Campaigners shouted from loudspeakers, "Maggie, Maggie, Maggie" as the crowd replied "dead, dead, dead". A chorus of "so long the witch is dead" erupted from those gathered as a cork from a champagne bottle was popped.

Thatcher's funeral saw a small number of peaceful protesters

President Howard led mourners in St Paul's Cathedral at the funeral of Thatcher. More than 1,000 guests from around the world paid their last respects at the biggest such occasion since the Diana's Funeral in 1997. Thousands of members of the public and the armed forces lined the funeral procession route through London. PM Ed Balls said it was a "fitting tribute" to a major figure. Three thousand police officers were on duty in central London but only a small number of protesters voiced their opposition. The congregation included Thatcher's family and all surviving prime ministers and presidents. At her personal request, the service did not include any eulogies.

The street parties received condemnation from all mainstream parties, even Northern Irish Premier Martin McGuinness condemned the protesters on Twitter. Acts of protest such as getting “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead” to number one were seen as crass and offensive by many. The protests weren’t the only source of dispute, the funeral itself was at the cost to the taxpayer of £3 million, Comedian Frankie Boyle commented “For 3 million you could give everyone in Scotland a shovel, and we could dig a hole so deep we could hand her over to Satan in person.”

“The comedian Frankie Boyle has set up an alternative running commentary to Lady Thatcher's funeral. With edgy outrageous messages to his 1.4 million followers on Twitter. Boyle, made several references to being sexually excited by the funeral proceedings. He tweeted: "She hasn't brought central London to a standstill like this since the Poll Tax riots." As guests arrived at St Paul's Cathedral, the comedian said: "This guest list is a damning indictment of the inefficiency of the IRA." As the bells of St Paul's tolled, he tweeted: "That bell ringing symbolises each of the strokes that finished her." Despite being offensive, his commentary appeared to attract support online. Boyle last appeared on the BBC in 2009 on the panel show Mock the Week. He left following a series of controversial jokes, including one in 2008 about swimmer Rebecca Adlington. Last month, Shane Allen, the BBC's new controller of comedy commissioning said he would like to see the comic have his own series at the corporation.” - Frankie Boyle launches alternative Thatcher funeral commentary, Robert Booth, The Guardian (2013)

Boyle's return to the BBC was put in jeopardy after the organisation received a record number of complaints around Boyle's commentary

As Thatcher faded into memory, increasingly eyes began to turn to the 2014 elections. Preparations were escalated when, in a joint press conference, President Howard and Leader of the Opposition Osborne announced if they were to win the 2014 elections, they would hold an in/out referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. Michael Howard said only his party is offering a "clear choice" about the Commonwealth's future in Europe. The Tories published a draft bill outlining plans for a referendum by the end of 2016. The President said the Liberal Democrats and Labour were not willing to listen to the public on the issue. Howard said he has shown leadership on the issue but critics said he was being dictated to by his backbenchers. Tory MPs sought to force a vote on the bill. George Osborne aimed to reassure the party's MPs that the party would let the public have their say on the Commonwealth's future in Europe. The bill stated that voters would be asked the question "do you think that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?" in a referendum to be held no later than 31 December 2016. But, speaking in the US - where he was on a three day-visit - Howard said a referendum was not possible without a Conservative Government. "We want a renegotiation, they don't, we want an in-out referendum, they don't."

“Government ministers should be given a free vote on whether to support a referendum on the EU, President Michael Howard has said. He told the BBC that both sides of the argument had to be treated with respect and ministers should be allowed to campaign for an EU exit if they wanted. Michael Howard presented his bid for an EU referendum to Parliament earlier this month. No 10 says no decision on a free vote will be made until the bill reaches the floor of Parliament. Mr Balls says he is keeping "all options on the table" in regards to an EU referendum. When Howard ran in the 2009 election, he proposed a renegotiation of the relationship with Brussels. He said that if the Balls' scepticism to a referendum failed to please his colleagues, then he should allow them to vote with their consciences. He told Radio 4's that whilst collective responsibility is important, once the Bill hits Parliament there should be a free vote.” - Michael Howard says ministers should have free vote, BBC News (2013)

Many politicians were thinking about European policy with one eye on the polls

Howard had thrown a Molotov cocktail into the centre of Commonwealth politics. He knew the bill wouldn’t pass without Labour and Liberal Democrat votes. Whilst Balls had said he was “keeping his options open” on Europe, there was no way he’d allow a referendum on Howard's terms. The Liberal Democrats were fundamentally against the policy. Even George Osborne had his private doubts but he couldn’t risk a backbench rebellion by publicly facing Howard down on the issue.

However the Bill would be going to a vote, as was Howard’s prerogative. Now the main issue for Balls was whether to enforce a coalition wide whip on the issue. Balls was not an instinctive Europhille, he knew whilst the Bill was unlikely to pass, forcing a three-line whip could collapse his fragile coalition. The Greens, fans of direct democracy, had committed to supporting an in/out Referendum, and there was a not inconsiderable number of backbench Labour MPs in Eurosceptic seats who would break ranks for an EU referendum. Balls had to decide, was Europe a hill worth dying on?

“Two recurring European nightmares trouble the Labour Party’s strategists. In the first the Conservative Party wins the next election by taunting Labour for its opposition to a referendum on EU membership. In the second Labour commits to a referendum and wins the election. It spends two years urging voters to back membership—but loses the vote, sending Britain out of the union. President Michael Howard, pledged to hold a referendum by the end of 2016 if his Conservative Party wins the next election. Labour shuffled its feet, saying it would watch developments in the EU before setting out its stall. But two camps emerged within the party. Some, including Ed Balls, worried about Labour seeming out of touch and distrustful of voters. They are seriously considering echoing Howard's commitment. A second camp, including Douglas Alexander, was more worried by the prospect that Labour could propel Britain out of the EU.” - Europhile and proud, The Economist (2013)

Labour's Senate Leader Douglas Alexander was one of the strongest voices against supporting a referendum in the Cabinet

How far do you agree that “Ed Balls was at heart, more Eurosceptic than Europhillic” (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

The 2011 Northern Irish Election took place with a historic backdrop, with Martin McGuinness serving as the regions first nationalist Premier, the power-sharing arangment meant the executive was split between the major parties, and thus far it had been working surprisingly well.

The DUP were the biggest winners of the election, consolidating the Unionist vote behind them and retaking the First Minister's office. In the words of DUP Leader Arlene Foster, the shock of McGuinness' victory had "focused hearts and minds" in the Unionist community, with many who had voted UUP or TUV in protest returning to the DUP's fold.

Sinn Fein also benefited from the two-party polarisation and consolidation of the left wing vote with the collapse of the Northern Irish Greens. Sinn Fein had proven themselves in Government and led a fairly successful administration, helping them to unify the Republican vote.

The SDLP struggled, with Sinn Fein in Government and the Alliance surging the SDLP struggled to find a niche for itself, the "moderate nationalist" vote was quickly being balkanised. Despite this they managed to hold on and avoid the cataclysm that smaller unionist parties faced.

The smaller unionist parties suffered the most in the 2011 elections, fear of Sinn Fein had rallied the Unionist vote around the DUP. The TUV especially struggled hold itself together due to infighting in its ranks.

As for cross-community parties, Alliance had a strong election picking up an extra seat, however the elections had been a disaster for the Greens after the departure of their popular leader Brian Wilson and they fell below the 4% threshold.

The most obvious consequence of the 2011 election was the return of the DUP to the First Minister's Office, bringing cohabitation back into the Northern Irish system. Some scholars argue this caused panic amongst some radical members of Sinn Fein and caused McGuinness to call for a border poll shortly after the election.

"This year, the Democratic Unionist Party will celebrate its 40th anniversary. It was only 8 years ago that it eclipsed the UUP to become the dominant unionist party in Northern Ireland. In that decade it has seen mixed election results, two leadership changes, the departure of its founder, and controversy. Now, as the May election for the Northern Ireland Assembly draws near, the DUP and its new parliamentary leader, Arlene Foster, are confident they will return. Looking at their track record in Assembly elections, it’s not hard to see why. The DUP can expect to be returned as the largest party in the next Assembly elections in 2011. Polls have shown TUV and UUP voters deserting in their droves to climb aboard the Arlene Foster express, the DUP has established itself at the top of Unionist politics." - DUP: Is the only way up for the party?, Slugger O'Toole (2011)

 

[powerab]

Europe had always been a divisive issue in the Commonwealth

“British politics has long revered parliamentary sovereignty and self-government. Such a political culture ought to be hostile to direct democracy. Yet all the most important constitutional decisions of the past two decades have been decided by referendums. Of course the Commonwealth was born of the 1998 referendum. The first UK-wide referendum was held in 1975 and concerned whether to stay in the then European Economic Community. Britons’ decision to maintain membership then has had wide-ranging constitutional ramifications. It has sparked an enduring debate on Europe. Forty years later, an in/out referendum on EU membership is seen as the best way to settle the ‘Europe question’ of how far to pursue closer political union. The expectation that a vote can settle the issues EU membership raises is puzzling. Belief in resolution by referendum crosses party divisions over European integration. The 2008 coalition government introduced a ‘referendum lock’ whereby any new EU treaty bestowing more powers on Brussels must be ratified by a popular vote.” - Why a British referendum on EU membership will not solve the Europe question, Chatham House Speech, Andrew Glencross (2013)

After a long deliberative Cabinet meeting, the coalition came to an agreement, whilst their individual party whips would be able to enforce a vote if they chose, there would not be a coalition wide whip on the EU Referendum Bill. The Liberal Democrats would be whipping against, the Greens for, and Labour? Well no-one really knew yet. Senior Labour Senators like Douglas Alexander, Ed Miliband and Chuka Umunna were begging Balls to whip against, believing there were enough Labour MPs to vote the bill through, unless they were sent a message. Alex Belardinelli, Balls’ Chief of Staff, was also weary of supporting a referendum.

On the other hand other Labour figures, such as Balls’ wife Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said Labour should vote for the referendum, polling showed UKIP growing exponentially, especially in traditionally Labour areas like County Durham and North-East Lincolnshire. Cooper was eager for Labour to prove it was listening to these areas. After consulting with his aides Balls came to a decision. He would allow a free vote for both Ministers and back-bench MPs, he himself would vote against, but MPs who voted for a Referendum would not be penalised.

London Senator Jon Cruddas led Labour's Eurosceptic faction

With this the debate began. Conservative MPs led calls for the public to have their say in a referendum. George Osborne, said he was "speaking for millions of people" in the country. He said "public sentiment" about Europe had changed and fresh consent for the UK's membership was "long overdue". Labour said the Tories were "talking to themselves" while the Lib Dems branded the bill a "complete stunt". Opening the debate, Osborne said "power should live with the people". He argued the bill would give the public a "real choice" on the UK's future in Europe within a "sensible time-frame". "We should trust the British public to have their say." Backing Osborne's call, UKIP MP Jane Collins said the EU was a "different creature" than it was 40 years ago when the public endorsed entry in a referendum. For the Greens, Leslie Rowe called on "everyone who is a true democrat to unite behind this bill". He said it was "the best chance currently available" for a referendum and to give people "the decisive say which is their right".

“The EU is part of the problem. In our Green vision for Europe we seek to replace the unsustainable economics of free trade and unrestricted growth with the ecological alternative of local self reliance. This is at odds with the declared aim of the EU for continuing economic growth. In laying out her vision for the single market, the Commission President Ashton put economic growth as the main goal. There is no evidence that EU policy will change in the foreseeable future. Indeed Greece may be locked into austerity measures until the year 2050. Economic policy in the EU is controlled by the unelected and secretive Eurogroup. Democracy died the moment the Eurogroup acquired the authority to dictate economic policy to member states. It is the Eurogroup who continue to force privatisation on Greece and other EU states. We in the UK now have a once in a lifetime opportunity to remodel our society, our economy. But only if the Green Party embraces its principles once again and adopts de-growth. We would hold a unique position by opposing all UK free trade agreements and focus on reducing the out of control UK trade deficit.” - The Green Party should support leaving the EU, Leslie Rowe, Left Foot Forward (2013)

After four hours of debate, the House of Commons were finally ready to vote. The result was expected to be close, as many as 20 Labour MPs were expected to break ranks and vote for a Referendum, at the same time as many as 40 europhile Conservative MPs were expected to vote against, so the result could go either way. As Speaker Ming Campbell rose to announce the results, the eyes of Europe were on the Commonwealth.

“The ayes to the right, 314. The noes to the left, 309. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock!”

The result came as a shock, whilst many expected the result to be close, few expected it to pass! In total 22 Labour MPs voted with the Tories in favour of a referendum, whilst only 34 Conservative MPs voted against the Referendum. The Commonwealth was one step closer to leaving the EU. The result was humiliating for Balls, he had severely underestimated the support for a referendum on his own benches, his whips had reported between 10-15 Labour MPs voting for a referendum, not over 20.

Former West Midlands First Minister turned MP Tom Watson was one of the Labour MPs to support a referendum

“Ed Balls has failed to defeat a bid to grant a referendum on EU membership. The motion passed by 314 votes to 309, Balls granted his MPs a free vote on the issue. In total 22 Labour MPs are known to have defied the whips, while others abstained. Conservative leader George Osborne said the revolt was a "humiliation" for the prime minister. "If he can't win the argument with his own backbenchers, how can the country have confidence that he can win the arguments that matter for Britain?" he said. A Downing Street spokesman said many people who voted for the motion felt very strongly, and their views were respected. "The government has to do what is in the national interest. It was important to take a strong lead - because Britain's best interests are served by being in the EU." The multi-hour Commons debate on the issue was prompted after President Michael Howard called for a Referendum on the EU after a petition on the issue received 90,000 signatures." - Rebels win vote in Commons, BBC News (2013)

All was not lost, the Referendum Bill now had to go to the Senate, now Balls was faced with another dilemma, if he held his current course there was a good chance a referendum would pass, he could become the Prime Minister to take Britain out the EU by accident, on the other hand if he now whipped in the Senate it would be a humiliating climb down. Alexander, Labour’s leader in the Senate, on the other hand was furious. In a raucous joint meeting of the Parliamentary and Senate Labour parties Alexander threatened to whip his Senators against the Bill, with or without Balls’ consent.

Balls had his back against the wall. If he maintained his free vote policy at best Alexander would defy him, causing a dangerous split in the party, at worse the bill would pass and a referendum would actually happen. On the other hand if he whipped against the bill he risked haemorrhaging further support to UKIP in the North of England, it would be an embarrassing u-turn, the Sun would have a field day.

TV presenter David Miliband called Balls to urge him to whip against a referendum

In the end Balls decided that a referendum here and now, on the Tories’ terms wasn’t a risk he could take. In a joint announcement with Alexander, Balls announced Labour Senators would be whipped against the Referendum Bill. Labour’s whips produced a list of 15-20 Senators who were thinking about voting for the bill, and Alexander got to work.

As the Senate debate began, Alexander said the referendum was predicated on an "uncertain strategy". He claimed the issue had become an obsession for the Conservatives. "Three years in, this is a party still banging on about Europe, a party talking to itself and not the country." Lib Dem Senate Leader Danny Alexander, said it was a "complete stunt". He told Senators that the time for a referendum was when the "rules of the game" changed and when "new things were asked of the UK". UKIP Senate Leader David Bannerman said a "passionate" referendum campaign would "wake up" the country. "I want friendship, co-operation and trade (with the EU). I don't want to be part of a political union. I don't find it acceptable that 75% of our laws are now made by the institutions of Brussels." After hours of debate, Senate Presiding Officer Nigel Evans rose to announce the result, and Balls muttered a little prayer.

“The ayes to the right…”

“Some senior politicians such as Leicester Mayor Keith Vaz, called for a referendum. Those most sympathetic to a referendum forced a Cabinet discussion. They pushed to tilt the party's European policy to make it clearer that Labour would keep its options open on a referendum. They did not want Labour to appear to be advocates of a status quo in Europe. That view was reflected in Balls' recent broadcast interviews and the definitive speech to Chatham House. Among those pushing this stance was Senator Jon Cruddas, an unabashed advocate of a referendum. Although there are different attitudes to Europe inside Labour, there is little of the hatred found in the Conservatives. The debate is as much about political tactics as anything. One source said: "It depends how important Europe becomes in the election. It is not currently that important with most voters. But if the issue of whether a party is holding a referendum or not becomes important, then that becomes a problem for us".” - Ed Balls unnerves colleagues by u-turning on EU referendum, Patrick Wintour, The Guardian (2013)

Senior Conservatives like Former Secretary Gove and Premier Johnson backed an EU referendum

“The Senate President is just as powerful as the Prime Minister”, discuss (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

Senators debate the EU Referendum

“Senators have ranged in their speeches today, and there is nothing wrong with that. We have heard many thoughtful, considered arguments across the whole panoply of issues. I trust that the House will understand that in my response I will focus on the Bill itself, looking at its provisions and principles. I can see that Members of the Senate are vigorous on this matter. It is a model of the Senate for others to watch and, I hope, admire. I have been asked many questions about the negotiations and I will deal with that matter first. The Conservatives have made it clear that there are four areas where we want change. Sovereignty, economic governance, competitiveness and immigration. For example, ever closer union may be right for others but it is not right for Britain. We wish to protect Britain’s interests outside the euro. We want to increase economic competitiveness to create jobs and growth for hard-working families. We want to reform welfare to reduce the incentives that have led to the mass immigration from Europe.” - President Michael Howard addressing the Senate (2013)

“The ayes to the right, 169. The noes to the left, 179. The noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock!”

A Referendum wasn't happening, but Euro-scepticism was still at an all-time high

For what felt like the millionth time in his premiership, Balls had narrowly avoided disaster. The Senate had rejected a referendum, his aggressive whipping had worked, only 13 Labour Senators had defied him to vote for a referendum. This didn’t detract from the fact that the referendum making it this far was a failure, only being defeated at the last minute by an incredibly narrow margin. There were howls of protest from opposition benches, especially UKIP who had their Referendum snatched out from under their nose. Senator Margot Parker said on the floor of the Senate “if the establishment won’t grant us a referendum then we will make the next election into a referendum”.

For George Osborne the referendum vote had returned mixed dividends. On one hand he had clearly rattled Balls, the U-turn had been embarrassing and allowed Osborne to put on a good show at Prime Minister’s Questions. On the other hand the vote had emboldened his right flank and UKIP smelt blood, the party climbed higher in the polls and rumours swirled that a dozen Tory MPs were considering jumping ship.

UKIP figures immediately got to work to keep the moment of the EU vote going. UKIP's Senate Leader David Bannerman had to find refuge in a pub after he was swarmed by angry protesters as he left a press conference. When he later left and was escorted into a police van, protesters chanted "scum, scum, scum". Bannerman was in Birmingham for a rally following the Senate vote. Police said two men had been arrested following the protest. Bannerman denied that the protests were caused by racism within UKIP. "We are a non-racist, non-sectarian party. Unlike every other party in British politics we actually forbid people who have been on extreme left or right from joining our party." Protesters chanted "Bannerman is being lifted" and "How does it feel to be treated like an asylum seeker?" UKIP Senator Mike Hookem described the scenes as "incoherent rage". "He wasn't shaken up by it. He was laughing, in fact."

“A crowd of about 400 people attended a meeting in Hove addressed by the UK Independence Party Parliamentary Leader Paul Nuttall. Mr Nuttall, MP for the North West constituency, praised the audience for “running the gauntlet” of about 100 protesters. About 20 people were ejected from the meeting after jeering and chanting as Mr Nuttall tried to speak. He told the meeting: “We are a patriotic party. We believe in standing up for the rights and freedoms of everybody wherever they come from and whatever their race or colour. But we oppose the policy of open-door immigration.” He said, at the county council elections: “UKIP produced a result that has shaken the lazy consensus politicians to their core. People said that they were worried that if they voted UKIP they might let somebody else in. But at the county council elections if you voted UKIP you got UKIP in a lot of those seats. Thank you, Ken Clarke! Instead of playing the ball he played the player. He called us a bunch of clowns. We ought to institute an annual Kenneth Clarke prize.” - Hundreds turn out in Hove to hear UKIP leader, Frank le Duc, Brighton and Hove news (2013)

An impromptu UKIP protest in Swansea

The British far right had been filled with rage, and violence was spilling onto the streets. This was only compounded after a shocking attack on Britain’s streets. A British Army soldier, Fusilier Lee Rigby, was attacked and killed near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich. Rigby was off duty and walking along Wellington Street when he was attacked. His attackers ran him down with a car, then used knives and a cleaver to stab and hack him to death. The men dragged Rigby's body into the road and remained at the scene until police arrived. They told passers-by that they had killed a soldier to avenge the killing of Muslims by the British armed forces. Unarmed police arrived at the scene eight minutes after an emergency call was received and set up a cordon. Armed police officers arrived five minutes later. The assailants, armed with a cleaver and brandishing a gun, charged at the police, who fired shots that wounded them both. They were apprehended and taken to separate hospitals. That the murder happened in broad daylight in a peaceful suburban road in Woolwich, south East London, was shocking enough. That the murderers wanted it captured on camera (in a video released on international media) was even more shocking.

“Broadcasters including the BBC have been cleared of breaking TV regulations by airing footage of Lee Rigby's murder. Media regulator Ofcom received nearly 800 complaints about TV news coverage of the Woolwich attack in which Rigby died on 22 May. Coverage included graphic footage filmed by a member of the public on a mobile phone of one of the assailants with blood on his hands. Michael Adelbolajo, 29, and Michael Adebowale, 22, were convicted of murdering Rigby by a jury at the Old Bailey on Thursday. Ofcom has been investigating whether the broadcast of the footage before the 9pm watershed is in breach of the UK broadcasting code. It is understood that Ofcom has cleared all the broadcasters on the basis that showing the footage was in the public interest. According to Ofcom's code, broadcasters must apply "generally accepted standards". This means that any offensive material they air must be justified.” - BBC, ITV and Sky News cleared over graphic footage, Mark Sweney, The Guardian (2013)

Police lock-down Woolwich

Home Secretary Bennett launched a task force to tackle radicalisation in the UK, in the wake of the Rigbyattack. In a statement to MPs, Bennett paid tribute to Rigby, and set out her plans to "learn the lessons'' from the tragedy. The Joint Intelligence and Security Committee, chaired by former Secretary Dominic Grieve, was commissioned to look into the case. Bennett chaired the first meeting of a new task force, looking at extremism and radicalisation. Bennett said: "The police investigation is still under way into the vile murder in Woolwich, and there will need to be charges in court. Thus we can't speculate at this stage on what caused this horrific attack or what might have made a difference. But we hope the Government's task force on tackling extremism will be a strong first step. But, the task force should also rethink the changes and reductions made in the Prevent strategy. We will also use the task force to look again at the replacement of control orders by TPIMs. The inability to move terror suspects outside London creates added pressure on the Met and the security service".

Far right groups like the English Defence League, BNP and BDP all sort to take advantage of the situation in their turf war for control of the far right. The family of Lee Rigby urged people to "show their respect", saying the murdered soldier would not want anyone to exploit the event. Their call came as far-right groups prepared for their biggest mass mobilisation in years. This included dozens of planned protests by the EDL and a BNP rally in central London. The statement said his friends included those of different beliefs and cultures, all whom he treated "with the greatest of respect". They said: "We would like to emphasise that Lee would not want people to use his name as an excuse to carry out attacks against others. We would not wish any other families to go through this harrowing experience and appeal to everyone to keep calm and show their respect." There had been a sharp increase in reports of Islamophobic incidents since Rigby's death. More than 150 were reported to a hotline in the week following his murder. BNP MP Nick Griffin, led a five-mile march from Woolwich to Lewisham. The far right were angry, and looking for a fight.

“There is an assumption that the far-right sets out to achieve political aims, there are also non-political motivations. For example ensuring the continuation of belief systems or developing a social identity. Where wider political aims are present, they vary depending on the ideology. NeoNazi and neo-fascist influenced groups are the most extreme. Both sets seek to enact revolutionary changes to bring about racially homogeneous nations. There are infinite variations within this broad goal. Radical groups instead seek to work within established norms, albeit with a critical stance on liberal values. In these instances aims are often more modest, seeking to change immigration laws or greater policing of suspect groups. There are four strategies employed by far-right groups: electioneering; protest; normalisation and violence.” - Overview of the Far Right, Lecture by Dr Benjamin Lee, Lancaster University (2013)

Young BNP Protesters in London

Critically asses the counter-terrorism Policies of the Balls Government (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

Leeds teaching hospital was one of the hospitals inspected but not placed into special measures

“The findings of a review into the quality of care and treatment provided by 13 hospital trusts has prompted widespread coverage in the press. The review, started in February 2013, was led by Professor Bruce Keogh, the National Medical Director for the NHS. It looked at the quality of the care and treatment provided by 13 trusts identified as having higher than average death rates in the last two years. Ten of these trusts are to be put under ‘special measures’ to improve governance. The review has revealed problems in care that had not been exposed before. The report says immediate safety issues found were dealt with straight away. It also calls for coordinated efforts to improve care and accountability in the longer term. The review was commissioned by the President, Micheal Howard and the Secretary of State for Health. It was commissioned in response to the findings of the Mid Staffordshire Public Inquiry. Above average death rates can often be accounted for by other factors (such as the hospital serving an area with an older population).” - Keogh review on hospital deaths published, NHS Press Release (2013)

If the British people had hoped for a quiet year in British politics they were sorely mistaken. Controversy reared its head once again after it was revealed that ten NHS trusts had been flagged for having excessively high death rates, Health Secretary Alistair Carmichael announced the Federal Government would be stepping in, putting the hospitals in special measures under the direct control of the Health Department, rather than the regional Government.

Carmichael's actions opened a debate on whether health should be a National or Regional issue.

Health Secretary Carmichael said the trusts had problems so entrenched that tough action was needed. He cited examples of staffing problems, poor care and weak leadership as he announced the move in Parliament. The Health Secretary said investigators had confidence the new leadership would make changes. As part of the process of special measures for the other 10 teams of external experts were sent into the organisations. The Department of Health took radical measures. DHSC shut down two operating theatres because of inadequate maintenance records. The review team said while the failings were significant they had found nothing on the scale of the Stafford Hospital scandal. Problems included patients being left on trolleys and poor maintenance in operating theatres. Some trusts reported staff working for 12 days in a row without a break. Carmichael said: "We have taken swift and tough action to make sure these hospitals are given all necessary support to improve."

“Under a Lib Dem plan the Health and Social Care Act would not be repealed wholesale. But some sections that force services out to tender would be targeted for reform. They have also pledged an extra £2 billion until 2015/16 on top of the £9 billion pledge to keep up with spending recommended by NHS leaders. Half of the extra funding will go on mental health treatments including better access to talking therapies. They aim to guarantee treatment for people with conditions such as depression within 17 weeks.” - Where do the parties stand on the NHS?, Briefing by CLASS (2011)

The NHS chaos put further pressure on the coalition, who had thus far resisted NHS reforms. The Sun slammed the report as an “NHS Horror Story”. Conservative Senator Nick Boles said: "These figures raise serious questions about the measures in place to check what hospitals get up to. This Government has failed to ensure they adhered to their responsibility to patients. This raises serious questions about value for money in the NHS and public sector procurement." Deputy Prime Minister Vince Cable called for further reform to the NHS saying the government was trying to introduce a "new culture where you don't hide away mistakes" in the National Health Service. "It's about accountability. The NHS is a public service, paid for by everybody, for all of us. That's what this is about. We are, bit by bit, introducing a new spirit of accountability which will raise standards over time."

The coalition faced further controversy when Secretary Hillier announced new laws on pornography. Hillier said a new computer database would attempt to speed up the way police could investigate online images of child abuse. Fresh concern around pornography came after the murders of children April Jones and Tia Sharpe. Home Secretary Natalie Bennett called on web giants to do more to stop people getting access to "disgusting" images of child abuse. She called on firms to use their "extraordinary technical abilities" to censor the images. The most continuous part of these new regulations was an automatic block on online pornography unless users "opt-in". The bill would require search engines to have safe search as a default. As well as enforcing effective age verification and splash page warnings.

Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command saw its budget grow as part of the new package

“We need a situation where you cannot have people searching for child abuse images and being aided in doing so. If people do try and search for these things there are clear and simple signs warning them that what they are trying to do is illegal. We need to see much more accountability on the part of the search engines to help find these sites and block them. What we’ve already done is insist that clear, simple warning pages are designed and placed wherever abuse sites have been identified. So that if someone arrives at one of these sites they are warned that the page contained illegal images. These so-called splash pages are up on the internet from today and this is a vital step forward. But we need to go further. These warning pages should also tell people who’ve landed on these sites that they face consequences. Consequences like losing their job, losing their family or even access to their children if they continue. And they should direct them to the charity Stop it Now!” - Speech by Culture Secretary Meg Hillier (2013)

The new legislation came the Government was locking heads with tech giants, especially Google, Business Secretary John Healey had recently condemned Google for tax-avoidance. Internet firms were angered by the Government's repeated high–profile attacks. Google announced it would be ending its monthly meetings with ministers and would no longer block sights at Ministerial requests. Google said "If the Government wants to censor the internet, they should introduce laws which we can put in place. But ministers are terrified of being seen as trying to censor the internet as it is associated with draconian regimes. They are now expecting private firms to make judgements about what should and should not be seen by the public."

Google's growing power was of great concern to Bussiness Secretary John Healey

Whilst the so-called “porn block” had support across the two main parties it faced criticism from civil liberties and internet freedom groups. The Liberal Democrats were also weary of any internet censorship. Liberal Democrat Senator Dan Rogerson condemned the bill as "counter to all liberal instincts". The bill was also unpopular, it sharply divided the public with 37% in favour and 49% opposed.

There was some good news for the Commonwealth, in August a Bill banning fracking was passed in Parliament. A flagship policy of Environment Secretary Caroline Lucas, the Bill had a great deal of difficulty passing through Parliament, facing strong opposition from Conservative and UKIP MPs resulting in President Howard vetoing the bill, and then being overruled by coalition MPs.

After the Bill's passage the Government cancelled exploration licences held by fracking companies. Fracking company Cuadrilla complained to the court that the law was unfair after having two exploration permits revoked because of the ban. Prime Minister Balls confirmed Britain wouldn't allow exploration of shale gas energy, adding he would seek to keep costs down for consumers. "It's an environmental and political victory," said Lucas after the bill's passage. "With this decision the ban on hydraulic fracturing is absolute." Fracking had raised the ire of environmental groups who fear groundwater contamination. Cuadrilla said it would be bringing the bill to court, they argued that there wasn't a study that establishes risks from fracking. Lucas argued lawmakers were pursuing a legitimate goal in the interest of protecting the environment. The Government also rejected an argument that the ban went against property rights. Oil and Gas UK released a statement. "Britain is depriving itself of exploration that could bring large non-conventional carbon resources."

“Of course ending fracking spells immediate energy security worries. A conservative estimate of 10 per cent fracking would give us 30 to 40 tcf. Current total UK gas consumption is about 3 tcf a year and we import about half of it. Some fracking operations in the US manage much higher rates of extraction, and the technology is improving. (Damian Kahya from Greenpeace suggests that estimates of how much of the gas can be extracted are exaggerated. He says “The problem is that the gas in place is actually one of many factors you need to examine to work out how much you can extract”). The Institute of Directors slams the Government. They say fracking could have created tens of thousands of jobs in some of the most deprived areas of Britain.” - Fracking fact and fiction, Channel 4 News (2013)

Anti-Fracking protesters in Lancashire

How far do you agree with the following statement - “Ed Balls was the most authoritarian Commonwealth Prime Minister”? (30 Marks) - A Level History Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

The Syrian Civil War created an unprecedented refugee crisis

“When people are forced to leave the country where they live, they become known as refugees. The conflict in Syria has caused one of the largest refugee movements in recent history. Many refugees made the decision to try to reach Europe. This is because some countries in Europe said they would accept refugees who wanted to start a new life here. Millions of people both inside and outside Syria are in desperate need of help. Aid agencies say that getting help to people inside the country is very difficult and dangerous. The other topic that has been talked about a lot is the use of chemical weapons. There is an international law which bans countries from using chemical weapons in wars, as they are deemed too cruel to use on other people. In August 2013, it was reported that they were used in the war in Syria, which caused anger around the world. Both the rebels and the Syrian government denied that they were responsible." - What's happening in Syria?, Newsround, CBBC (2020)

Whilst fracking and Google were important and interesting policy points, the crisis in Syria was still the main event in international politics. Unlike many other western countries, the Commonwealth had avoided getting militarily involved, much to the anger of America and France. This policy was called into question when Assad was accused of conducting chemical weapon attacks.

The Commonwealth's indifference towards Syria was shattered after chemical weapon attacks

Chemical weapons attacks had killed hundreds on the outskirts of Damascus. Rockets with toxic agents were launched at the suburbs of the Ghouta region as part of a major bombardment on rebel forces. The Syrian army said the accusations had been fabricated to cover up rebel losses. The main opposition alliance said that more than 1,000 people were killed by the attacks. The UN said it was necessary to clarify what happened in the alleged attack, but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team. "There is a strong concern among council members about the allegations and a general sense that there must be clarity on what happened." Said Argentina's UN Ambassador Cecilia Nahón. Meanwhile, the US, Britain and France were among 30 member states that signed a letter calling for the UN inspectors to probe the latest incident. It was unclear how many died in the bombardment of the sites and how many deaths were due to any exposure to toxic substances.

“The OPCW Director General, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü, expressed grave concerns about the latest attack in Syria. He said that the OPCW experts were already in Syria with the UN investigation team. The Syrian regime announced that it will let the UN inspection team investigating chemical weapons to visit Damascus. The U.S. Secretary of State William Burns said in his press briefing that all information the U.S. has, shows that chemical weapons were used in Syria. He also said that Syria attempted to cover-up the incident in the days following the attack. Syrian President Bashar Assad announced that his army did not use chemical weapons in the attack in Damascus. Assad recognised the allegation of his use of chemical weapons as "politically motivated". A convoy transporting the UN investigation team of chemical weapons was attacked by snipers in Syria. No UN personnel were injured, but they were unable to visit all the sites affected by the attack.” - Timeline of Syrian Chemical Weapons Activity, 2012-2020, Arms Control Association (2020)

Syria's weapons became international priority number one

Michael Howard said the use of chemical weapons by Syria was "indefensible" after he recalled Parliament to discuss the crisis. The President said the world could "not stand by" in the face of the "massive use" of banned weapons. Howard said he believed that the Syrian government had the "motive and the opportunity" to use chemical weapons. "What we have seen in Syria are appalling scenes of death and suffering because of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime," he said. "We can't let that stand." Buckingham confirmed that Howard had spoken to Obama. But no decisions would be taken before a meeting of the National Security Council. US Defence Secretary Ash Carter said US forces were "ready to go" if given the order by President Obama. President Howard called for Parliament to be recalled from its summer recess four days early. Speaker Campbell said MPs would have the chance to vote on a "clear motion" of action.

Once again Michael Howard had led on events, and Balls found himself in a bind. Howard’s power meant a motion on military intervention would definitely be debated, which once again risked shattering his fragile coalition. On one hand Deputy Prime Minister Vince Cable was keen to intervene calling Assad’s actions “repugnant crime and a flagrant abuse of international law”, supported by the majority of Lib Dem MPs. There were also a considerable number of hawkish Labour backbenchers eager to step in.

“Without Labour support, Michael Howard will struggle to win a Commons vote and commit to a campaign of air strikes against the Assad regime. In June, 60 Tory MPs signed a letter to the Whips demanding the right to veto any delivery of arms to the Syrian rebels. The scale of disquiet over Syria inside Labour is growing. The Labour Whips' office have been ringing up backbenchers to canvass their views on military action. An emergency meeting of the PLP has been scheduled for 12.30pm on Thursday, two hours before the start of the Commons debate on Syria. The Labour Cabinet members will meet to discuss and decide the Labour line on air strikes at 10am. Secretary Andy Burnham has said he would find himself in a "very difficult position" if Labour supported military action. Yvette Cooper struck a hawkish note when she said "the use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians is abhorrent and cannot be ignored". She revealed that Labour "would consider supporting international action but only on the basis that it was legal.” - Labour Could Abstain On Syria Commons Vote, Mehdi Hasan, HuffPost (2013)

Votes on military action divided the Commons like no other

On the other hand the Greens were a strictly pacifist party, Balls’d be lucky if he could convince even one Green MP to back military action, a considerable number of Lib Dem backbenchers also sought to recapture their “finest hour” when they took a stand against the Iraq War. Finally there was his own party, the shadow of Tony Blair and Iraq still loomed large over the party, Balls didn’t want to repeat Blair’s mistakes of gambling on a dangerous war, then becoming a one-term leader.

Drumbeats of war thundered in Washington, and No 10 was convinced that the die was cast: Obama would act with or without allies. What was Balls to do? Balls laid out his conditions to Howard and Obama. Any action must be legal and limited to defusing further chemical attacks, and military aims must be achievable. None of those were ascertained in the days after. On legality, UN approval fell through, Russia and China both vetoing intervention at the Security Council. Another legal problem was it was unclear whether the killer substance used in Ghouta was prohibited. The US used white phosphorus munitions in 2004 in Fallujah, not included in the chemical weapons treaty. Balls believed the inspectors needed more time – like Iraq all over again. Evidence proffered by security services was not a trump card. Every MP cajoled to vote for the Iraq war recalled the dodgy dossier, including Balls. As for achievable military aims, former military chiefs told Balls victory was impossible.

After consulting with aides and allies, Balls came down against military action, whilst not dismissing it as an option, Balls thought he had to buy the weapons inspectors more time. He knew Washington was moving at a political, not military timetable. Balls reportedly said to one aide “when the price is war, best to err on the side of caution.” Balls believed any military action would inevitably lead to civilian deaths, and decided to keep his hands clean.

This didn’t mean intervention was cancelled, the coalition agreed on individual whips for its constituent parties, freeing up to 80 of Vince Cable’s MPs to vote with the Tories. There were also a considerable number of interventionist Labour MPs who might cross the floor. Finally there was the issue of UKIP, which side would they come down on? Either way the vote was likely to be close, with long-term consequences for British Foreign Policy.

“Since becoming Labour leader, Ed Balls has often been at his most comfortable when not being Tony Blair. Balls’ most memorable speeches, the 2011 attack on predatory capitalism for example, are ones Blair would not have made. Balls' stances, such as his denunciation of Rupert Murdoch over phone hacking, are ones that Blair would never have adopted either. And Balls’ most effective acts, such as refusing to back military action over Syria, are acts that would have been anathema to Blair. All this has been well received by a party that had tired of, and often become angry with, New Labour. In contrast to the Conservatives’ longing for the spirit of Thatcher, the modern Labour party displays no such longing for that of Blair. It explains, in some important ways, why it was to Balls, not Johnson that the party turned two years ago. It explains why Labour has stuck to him. Balls was, and still is, the leader Labour both wanted and deserved.” - Balls can’t keep fudging foreign policy, Martin Kettle, The Guardian (2013)

Cross party meetings between Balls and Osborne became very heated

Proposing Bills and Motions on demand is the President’s most significant power”, discuss (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

London had been the most shocking Tory pickup during the 2009 Premier Elections. The Conservative candidate, Boris Johnson was popular but until him London has always been a left wing city. Boris' election led to contentious relationship with London's First Minister Emily Thornberry. Who had led a traffic light coalition since 2005. London was particularly interesting as it was the only region where all three coalition leaders were women.

Labour were led by incumbent First Minister Emily Thornberry, from the soft-left of the party. Thornberry was a popular First Minister and a strong media performer, often giving thumpings to her opposite number during First Minister's Questions. Thornberry based her campaign around helping young people through alleviating London's housing crisis and raising the London Living Wage. Her campaign went well, netting the party nearly 20 more seats.

The Conservatives were led by James Brokenshire a fairly unassuming "man in a grey suit". Brokenshire ran a traditional Tory campaign focusing on crime and support for the outer boroughs, he failed to capture Johnson's stardust and led to the party sliding backwards by the end of the election.

The Lib Dems were led by Deputy First Minister Lynne Featherstone, a strong ally of Lib Dem Parliamentary Leader Chris Huhne from the left of the party, Featherstone focused her campaign around expanding rights for minorities, especially LGBT people, she was known as a crusader for trans rights, having launched the first ever regional Transgender Action Plan. Unfortunately the Lib Dems had their vote squeezed by coalition regionally and nationally, and like all their sister parties, the London Lib Dems saw heavy loses, losing 14 seats.

As for the smaller parties, the Greens too suffered in coalition, although not as heavily as the Lib Dems. UKIP grew slightly but didn't see the massive surges in other parts of the country. The opposite was true for the BNP, whilst they were declining in most other regions, they managed to hang on in their East London bastions.

The Christian Party also saw growth, mostly campaigning in strongly religious communities against London's liberal attitudes to LGBT rights. The English Democrats broke through as well, under the leadership of high-profile men's rights activist Matt O'Connor. On the far-left Respect collapsed bellow the threshold losing all its MLPs.

After the results were announced the coalition had grown it's majority by three seats, and thus continued for another three years.

"Too many transgender people still face prejudice at every stage of their lives. From playground bullying, to being overlooked for jobs or targeted for crime. I am proud to announce the first government strategy to tackle the specific barriers facing transgender people. Transgender people have the right to be accepted, to live their lives free of harassment, and to be free to achieve any ambition they choose." - Speech by Deputy First Minister Lynne Featherstone (2013)

 

[powerab]

Free Syrian Army soldiers in Kansafra

"Labour MP Alison McGovern has said she regrets voting against taking military action in Syria in 2013 "every day". In August 2013 MPs voted on President Howard's proposal for possible UK military action against Syria. Alison McGovern told 5 Live: “The reason for voting against was because we had concerns about what was being suggested. Should I, could I have done more to make him (President Howard) come back with a better strategy and a clearer plan? That’s what I have to live with every day.” - BBC News (2017)

With Balls’ announcement Labour would vote against military action, MPs filled into the House of Commons for hours of debate. George Osborne put his case for military action against Syria to MPs. He told the emergency debate that he believed it "likely" the Syrian government was responsible for the 21 August attack. But he said MPs must make a judgement call ahead of a Commons vote. Osborne also argued the Commonwealth could launch strikes without UN backing, according to legal advice. He said action would be a legal "humanitarian intervention" - even if it was vetoed at the UN. Osborne told MPs he was convinced it was "beyond doubt" Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime was behind the attack. But he added: "In the end there is no 100% certainty about who is responsible." Osborne also stressed that unless action was taken Damascus would conclude it could use such weapons again and again. Prime Minister Balls said he was not ruling out future intervention but insisted there had to be a clear international decision. This came as Russia and China vetoed military intervention at the UN.

Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, and his Chinese counterpart Li Baodong both vetoed a UN resolution on Syria

"If we are saying there can only be a response if the UN security council votes, we are in fact contracting out our morality to the potential of a Russian veto. That is a very misguided approach. That was what was frustrating in some ways about the debate last night. Some of the participants were saying this has to be decided by the UN security council, knowing that they could veto any decision. There is a case for taking action when you are trying to prevent a humanitarian emergency. It is better with a UN security council resolution, but you cannot rule out taking action, if you cannot get one. We should have learned from some of the genocides in our world that there is an imperative for a line to be drawn. I am not a man to wait for others approval before doing the right thing." - President Howard speaking at G20 Press Conference (2013)

The debates continued for several hours with passionate speeches on both sides. A speech by Green MP Sharar Ali went viral on social media, with Ali commenting “Humility rather comes from a recognition of our fallibility, that in trying to reduce harm risk of greater harm may result. Faulty reasoning, and other failures in competency, can be just as damaging as ill motivation. Would that our leaders addressed questions on consequences more fully before engaging in shots in the dark.”

The vote also saw opposition outside Parliament, 6,000 people marched in the “Hands Off Syria” march opposite the entrance to Buckingham. Several hundred people, ranging from teenagers to the elderly, held placards bearing slogans such as "Cut war, not welfare". One protester said to journalists: "I can't see what we've achieved in 10 years in Iraq or Afghanistan. And I'm convinced we are being sold another pup. We can't afford schools, houses, teachers, nurses, but we buy as many bombs as we want. The people in this country can't afford another war." She added: "The mothers in Syria are going to be terrified. We are now the terrorists." Another protester said: "We want to bring home to the politicians the fact that the vast majority of people in this country are against war. This may be a way to change some politicians' minds before the vote. I've been interested in the Iraq war for a long time, but it's only now that it's reached this height of ridiculousness. This is the first time I've felt compelled to come out and protest. I'm astonished how this has happened and how much the President has rushed into this."

"People are concerned about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but they want us to learn the lessons of Iraq. They don't want a rush to war. They want things done in the right way, working with the international community. Britain doesn't need reckless and impulsive leadership, it needs calm and measured leadership. This President cannot barrel through Parliament making up foreign policy on a whim. It is the role of this house to apply the breaks, to think, to debate. Lives are a stack, I cannot, I will not, give this warmongering President a blank cheque." - Speech by Senator Ed Miliband (2013)

Former Presidential Candidate Ed Miliband became one of the party's strongest anti-war voices

With the sounds of protests outside, speaker Campbell rose to announce the result of the division.

"The ayes to the right, 281. The noes to the left 360. The noes have it, the noes have it. Unlock!"

Speaker Campbell had overseen many divisive votes

The result was a clear repudiation of intervening in Syria, much to the rage of Howard and Obama. All in all 20 Conservative MPs broke with their leadership to vote against the war, whilst 29 Labour MPs voted in favour of war. UKIP established itself as a credible and disciplined voting block, with all 51 of its MPs travelling through the no lobby. Surprisingly few Lib Dems defied Vince Cable to vote for war, only 13 Lib Dem MPs breaking the whip the vote against war.

Micheal Howard said he would respect the defeat of his motion by 79 votes, ruling out joining US-led strikes. The US said it would "continue to consult" with the Commonwealth, "one of our closest allies and friends". France said the UK's vote did not change its resolve on the need to act in Syria. Russia - which had close ties with the Assad government - welcomed Britain's rejection of a military strike. After the vote President Michael Howard said it was clear Parliament did not want action and that he would "act accordingly". Opposition Leader George Osborne predicted there would now be "national soul searching about our role in the world". He added: "I hope this doesn't become a moment when we turn our back on all the world's problems." Speaking on the BBC, Colonel Hugh Robertson said that he was "disappointed" with the result. He warned it would harm Britain's "special relationship" with Washington. But he said he did not expect Britain's decision to "stop any action" by other countries. Prime Minister Ed Balls said that the House of Commons had spoken "for the people of Britain".

Politically one of the biggest victors of the vote was the Greens, they had flexed their political muscles and many argued it was pressure from the Greens that had kept Britain out of Syria, of the those marching outside Parliament many carried Green banner and placards, after a shaky start to the coalition the Greens were slowly rebuilding trust amongst it’s radical backers and establishing bridges with an energised protest movements on the streets, a movement that wasn’t fading anytime soon.

“British riot police clashed with anti-capitalist protesters in running confrontations in London. Arresting at least 30 people as activists targeted some of the world’s biggest companies before next week’s G8 summit. About 200 protesters gathered outside oil company BP Plc’s headquarters. Others chanted “war criminals” at the office of U.S. defence company Lockheed Martin Corp. and booed outside the offices of U.S.-based bank Citi. One protester lunged towards officers on the top of a four-storey building where activists had been holed up. He wrestled to the ground by police wearing abseiling ropes inches from the roof’s unprotected edge. Police used chainsaws to break into the block in the Soho district where the StopG8 protest group had been staying. Several hundred protesters played cat and mouse with riot police sowing hours of traffic chaos. Around 200 protesters gathered outside a central London police station this evening. “The G8 is a front for the kleptocracy" said a protester.” - Riot police clash with anti-G8 protesters in London, Micheal Holden, Reuters

London Riot Police lock down the city ahead of the G8

“Critically assess the political consequences of Parliament’s 2013 Syrian War vote (30 Marks)” - A Level Politics Exam (2013)

 

[powerab]

The South East had been ruled by Premier Theresa May since 2004, leading a coalition of Conservative and UKIP legislators, Nick Gibb had served as the region's Senate President since 2002.

The Conservatives were led by Nick Gibb, a long standing veteran of South East politics and ally of Premier, at the same time as serving as the Senate President Gibb also held the role of Education Minister in the May Government. Most South East voters knew him as the man who had introduced mandatory formal times tables exams to children as young as six. Gibb's campaign focused on May's popularity, focusing on going after disaffected UKIP voters. It worked incredibly well, with the Tories cannibalising its junior coalition partner and gaining six seats.

On the Labour side their leader was Regional Senator and former University of Southampton academic Alan Whitehead. Whitehead's policy passion was in environmental policy, a big supporter of renewables his campaign was based around transitioning the South East away from fossil fuels. Whitehead, like the Tories benefited from the perception that the last few years of regional coalition had been chaotic, and thus many voters rallied around the two big parties.

The Lib Dems leader Stephen Lloyd was a local populist in the mould of Norman Lamb and a eurosceptic. Lloyd fought a local campaign around issues like homeless in the South East's largest cities, whilst he lost votes, unlike many of his sister parties he managed to hold on to all his Senators.

As for minor parties, UKIP was led by the Senate's Vice President Diane James, UKIPs tenure in coalition had been a disaster and James had to step in at the last minute after her predecessor resigned in shame. The regional party had descended into bitter civil war, with James struggling to hold the party together many of its voters moved to the Conservatives and they lost half of their Senators.

The Greens were led by NHS trustee Larry Sanders, Sanders focused his campaign around austerity cuts, especially towards NHS hospitals, however like the other third parties Sanders lost votes to the two main parties.

Finally the BNP was led by Donna Bailey, Bailey was notable among BNP politicians for being a middle class younger mother, compared to the usually thuggish older men who fronted the BNP. The Daily Mail referred to her as the "BNP's blonde bombshell" in a fawning article. (authors note: yes they really did this OTL) Bailey was seen as respectable and performed well in the local press, avoiding the downfall of her colleagues in other regions.

"UKIP has announced its Leader for the Senate election. Senator Diane James, currently a Senator for Surrey will lead the party. Mrs James, who defected to UKIP in 2007, said she was "honoured" and party grandee Nigel Farage said she would "stand up for ordinary communities". Mrs James said: "I plan to fight hard and show the people of the constituency that they can vote for someone with integrity and commitment. A real opposition to the failed policies of the Westminster Government and the invisible Labour Party." Mr Farage said: "Diane has a successful record as a healthcare and political campaigner. She wants to stand up for ordinary communities." Mrs James has a fight ahead of her after UKIP South East's many controversies in Government and the party's dire polling, in some polls as little as 5%. Many UKIP officials see UKIP South East's disastrous tenure in Government as a warning for any future national coalition. - BBC South East News, (2013)

 

[powerab]

With party primaries imminent, Westminster was jumpy

“In a few months' time, Britain will go to the polls in what promises to be a tense and unpredictable election. Politicians and campaigners are gearing up and there is already much excitement - in the Westminster village, at least. But as with previous UK elections, millions of voters are expected not to turn out and many more will not be registered to vote in the first place. In 2011, a close election, 13 million registered electors did not vote. And recent estimates suggest 7 million eligible voters are not able to vote because they are missing from the electoral register. The right to vote is the most fundamental tenet of democracy and yet millions do not exercise it. So should that right be made into a duty? The senior Labour backbencher, David Winnick, MP is one of many politicians supporting more radical moves to get people voting. He has introduced a Commons ten minute rule bill - an opportunity to highlight an issue of concern - suggesting that voting should become a "civic duty".” - Should voting (or actively abstaining) be compulsory?, BBC News (2013)

As 2013 moved into the Autumn conference and primary season thoughts began to drift to the upcoming Presidential and Parliamentary elections the next year. UKIP was having a good year, as of September 2013 they had a polling average of 15%, they were projected to win as many as 100 seats, well ahead of the Lib Dems. The “Faragites” like Paul Nuttall and David Bannerman had spent much of the year trying to professionalise the party, eager to avoid the embarrassment of previous years.

Awash with cash from disaffected Tory donors, UKIP got to work training up its candidates for elections up and down the country

This work would all come undone when Godfrey Bloom, one of the party’s longest serving Senators got himself into trouble. The UKIP politician had the party whip removed after joking that a group of female activists were "sluts". Senator Godfrey Bloom made the comments while addressing a "women in politics" event at UKIP's annual conference in Hull. Challenged afterwards, he said it had been a joke. The remark prompted laughter from some of those present. UKIP's Senate leader David Bannerman said he believed disciplinary action should be taken. Bannerman said he did not have the power to suspend him without the authority of the party chairman and governing executive. He would however recommend sanctions against the Yorkshire and Humber Senator who he said had "gone beyond the pale". UKIP chairman David Stevens later confirmed the whip would be removed from Bloom, suspending him from the party. In a fringe meeting at the party's annual conference in London, Bloom made reference to women not cleaning behind the fridge. When the women at the meeting said they had never cleaned behind their fridges, he said: "This place is full of sluts."

Blooms’ sacking was a watershed moment for UKIP, Bloom, whilst eccentric, had been one of the party’s longest serving national figures, having served in the Senate since 2003. Bloom wasn’t new to controversy, in 2008 he had to be physically carried out of the Senate after making a speech whilst drunk. Despite Bloom’s multiple controversies UKIP’s national leadership were reluctant to take action against him. This all changed in 2013, UKIP was now (at least in their eyes) a serious party, and Bloom’s actions were not acceptable, the party leadership’s fast, almost ruthless actions were seen by many as a signal UKIP was moving into a new phase.

“For Labour UKIP presents a significant challenge. UKIP’s supporters ‘are much more likely to be low-income, financially insecure and working class’ – in short, ‘old Labour’. We are likely to see more than a handful of UKIP MPs at Westminster. The true ‘UKIP effect’ is likely to be felt through attempts at strategic repositioning by other parties. Both the Conservatives and Labour are being urged to ‘listen’ to UKIP voters. We have already seen Micheal Howard move to promise a referendum on membership of the European Union by the end of 2017, to shore-up his position. Ed Balls is also facing calls from some within his party to pledge a referendum. Should the Labour leader agree to this temptation UKIP could bring profound developments in British politics. British politics has now entered a period where Euroscepticism is the mainstream norm. Pro-Europeanism is effectively re-defined as the maintenance of the status quo. The presence of UKIP can only serve to entrench this Eurosceptic consensus.” - UKIP’s Watershed Moment, Lecture by Richard Hayton, LSE (2013)

UKIP was getting ready for its biggest election campaign ever

UKIP weren't the only ones looking ahead to the 2014 elections, Labour too were eyeing up a second term in the driving seat, and the opportunity to remove Michael Howard as an annoyance. Secretary John Healey announced the Government would freeze gas and electricity bills for every home for 20 months. He also revealed plans for big energy firms to be split up and governed by a new tougher regulator to give people "a fairer deal". The Government said the move will save average households £130 and businesses £1,900 - but cost the energy giants £4.6bn. Energy companies said the policy could lead to power shortages, and jeopardise investment and jobs. Labour Senator Angela Eagle said firms had been overcharging "for too long" and it was time to "reset" the energy market. The Tories accused Balls of a "sleight of hand", saying people would have to "pay more for their electricity" under the plans. Speaking at his party's annual conference in Stoke, Ed Balls set out his policies for the year, with the slogan "Britain is doing better". Hailing an economy that works for "ordinary people once again". Further policy announcements included measures to give 16 and 17-year-olds votes in elections.

Polling at an average 34% Labour had a decent lead of 6 points over the Conservatives, the coalition had been fairly successful and the Conservatives were descending into bitter infighting between supporters of Howard and supporters of Osborne. Balls decided it was time to start throwing some popular policies to his base, his worsening relationship with the unions and tensions in the coalition meant Balls couldn’t afford to be complacent, however the new policies made it clear Balls’ eyes were on 2014.

Labour was leading in the party polls, but floundering in trust on the economy

“An alarming 46% of voters say Labour "cannot be trusted with the economy", in a Labourlist/Survation poll this week. Months to the election the Ed Balls needs to scale that cliff of mistrust: this week he straps on his crampons, each with a key policy speech. What will it take? These are the twin peaks to climb. First anchor tax and spending commitments to a secure base camp, then shift the public's sights towards growth as the only route upwards. Ed Balls has conceded what has become all but inevitable. In its second term a Labour government would stick to the Osborne era spending plans it has maintained its first term. "Iron discipline" and "big and painful choices" for "a tough deficit reduction plan" with "tough fiscal rules". That is the "starting point", and, short of economic change, that's likely to be what Labour's manifesto says. Swallowing the iron envelope hurts, but it has become a necessity since Labour's failure to win crucial arguments.” - As Labour's iron man, Ed Balls could do the trick, Polly Toynbee, The Guardian (2013)

The coalition also took steps to try and target its perceived softness on crime. After several months of delay, Home Secretary Natalie Bennett and President Howard opened the brand new National Crime Agency. The body launched to tackle the UK's most serious crimes, Home Secretary Bennett said. The National Crime Agency was to tackle organised and economic crime, border policing and child protection. It replaced many existing bodies. With cross party support the plan passed Parliament on a four to one margin. The NCA was part of Bennett's "local police plan" where the powers of the national police were to be restrained and unified for only the most serious of cases. Allowing for devolution of police powers to the regions to deal with day to day crime. Hopefully with a more restrained national police force incidents like the murder of Mark Duggan, and the subsequent riots wouldn't happen again. The NCA, was to lead the fight against the estimated 36,000 criminals involved in organised and serious crime in the UK. It replaced the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which was formed in 2005. The NCA had 4,000 officers and aimed to adopt a more visible, joined-up approach than before. The move was surprising to many, the Libertarian Greens expanding policing and there was some outcry within the party. But Bennett, like everyone else. heard the siren call of 2014.

“Long-term changes to Britain's demographics and politics worked in favour of the Green Party. Generational replacement increases the number of voters who share the Greens' ‘post-material’ beliefs. Those voters who remain engaged have become less predictable. For more voters than ever before, in 2011 Natalie Bennett's party was attractive because it provided the best product in a crowded market. As long Labour continues to adopt anti-immigration rhetoric, there will be growing space for a left-wing party. So long as the Liberal Democrats remain tainted by their term with the Tories, the Greens should be able to keep a considerable part of the protest vote. But, the benefit that the Green Party receives from being united on issues like immigration may attract a divided support base. Already there is a split between centrist ‘mangoes’ and far-left ‘watermelons’. Depending on what narrative the media sets between now and the 2014 General Election, the Greens may be seen as the fifth party of British politics.” - The Other Insurgency, James Dennison, Parliamentary Affairs (2013)

The Greens faced an identity crisis, were they a liberal party of Government, or an eco-socialist party of the streets?

“The 2011 Coalition was right to lower the voting age to 16”, discuss (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

Who’s in the running to be Labour’s Presidential Candidate?

With the Presidential Election just months away pundits are waiting for the first Labour Candidate to throw their hats into the ring. Here are the top contenders.

By Annosh Chakelian

Senator Ed Miliband
Senator for Yorkshire since 2011, former Environment Secretary.

After a surprisingly strong performance in the 2009 primaries Miliband has been angling for a second try. Miliband has portrayed himself as the candidate of the soft left, marching with Occupy protesters, Miliband is popular with the Unions and currently the bookies favourite.

• Strengths: Left, but not too left, liked across the party and the unions, a former Harvard Economics professor with a brain the size of Scotland.
• Weaknesses: Despite outperforming his brother in the 2009 primaries he is still seen as a bit of a backstabber, not the most telegenic, could this Harvard elite go toe-to-toe with the populist Howard?

Secretary Andy Burnham
Transport Secretary Since 2011, former International Development Secretary

Similar politics to Miliband except with nicer suits, a prettier face and Northern charm. Like Miliband, Burnham is seen on the left of the party, gets on with the Greens. Also like Miliband he is close with the Unions especially Unite, if anyone can get Jerry Hicks to cough up some cash it would be Burnham. However some allies say he has his eyes on the North West’s Premiership.

• Strengths: Union support, northern working-class appeal, lovely eyelashes.
• Weakness: Known as a “BTEC Ed Miliband” with his soft-left stance and New Labour background.

Secretary Yvette Cooper
Foreign Secretary since 2011, former First Minister of Yorkshire

The most senior woman in the party, rumours are her husband PM Ed Balls is not planning to run for Pres, happy with his current job, thus making Cooper the candidate of the Ballsites and Brownites. There is certainly an appetite for a woman President. It is unclear what she stands for, as she keeps her cards very close to her heart. She rarely does print interviews, in contrast to how well-known her husband’s colourful hinterland is.

• Strengths: Has the support of the Balls faction, very experienced and well known.
• Weaknesses: People aren’t really sure what she stands for, has a reputation for being a bit dull.

Senator Chuka Umunna
Senator for London since 2011, former journalist and commentator.

Another favourite for the Presidency, Umunna is very much a brand. That brand is smooth, modern, even a bit sexy. He is a slick performer and impresses his colleagues as well as supporters. Yet his rise and rise has caused some to suggest that he has flown too close to the sun and his moment is still to come. Umunna is an interesting candidate politically in that he has Blairite credentials but came up through the party’s left flank, working for the left-wing think tank Compass – and was probably closer to Gordon Brown back then in his political outlook. He could use this to combine the best of Blue Labour with the best of New Labour, but some are suspicious about his politics being “all things to all men”.

• Strengths: A good media performer; well-known among the public; a new face to lead the Labour party – it has never had an ethnic minority leader or nominee.
• Weaknesses: Too posh and smooth for a party that has attempted to shift leftwards; arrogance associated with the “British Obama” story; could get shafted by a more obvious Blairite candidate.

Colonel Dan Jarvis
Pundit, Former British Army Colonel

Colonel Dan entered into the public consciousness through campaigning against Osborne’s cuts to veteran benefits, now a frequent pundit on defence issues. An unlikely bet – he doesn’t have a particularly strong following in the party. But he has a compelling backstory, with his Army background. Hard to tell whether it would help or hinder him that he is so difficult to pigeonhole in the party – he's a member of Unison, Unite, the Fabian Society and the Co-operative Party.

• Strengths: Experience of war; fluid political associations; background outside politics; neither linked to Labour's past nor really to Balls.
• Weaknesses: No following in the party; fluid political associations. Has never held elected office.

Senator Tristram Hunt
Senator for the West Midlands since 2007, Former Academic.

“What has he actually done?” is a common refrain among Labour insiders that could scupper Hunt’s chances. Though a charming (and attractive) figure, Hunt isn’t seen as a conviction politician. He has a vaguely Blairite past in that he was David Miliband’s Vice Chair in the last primary, but this won’t be strong enough when up against more obvious Blairite candidates.

• Strengths: Telegenic – opposite of Ed Miliband in terms of appearance and manner.
• Weaknesses: Is the Labour party ready for a privately-educated leader called Tristram?

Senator Liz Kendall
Senator for the East Midlands since 2007, Former Chief of Staff to Patricia Hewitt.

An arch-Blairite. She has forged a lot of links in the party. Ambitious and hardworking, and someone who has made many connections since her time as a special adviser. I hear she can be difficult to work with – and to work for – as her ambition can make her challenging to deal with. This might make some Labour supporters think twice about making her their nominee.

• Strengths: Blairites in the party like her; her campaign would be fierce; competent media performer.
• Weaknesses: Can be hard work; will the party want to so overtly revert to a New Labour leader?

Fmr Opposition Leader David Miliband
TV Host, Former Leader of the Opposition.

The return of the living dead. Despite his disastrous 2008 and 2009 performances there remains few who can fill Miliband’s shoes as king of the Blairites. However now that he’s making six figures presenting documentaries, would he want to return to the dirty world of politics?

• Strengths: Has a large base of support amongst party insiders, telegenic and lots of friends in the media.
• Weakness: Hard to present yourself as the electable candidate when you’ve lost two elections, third times the charm.

Mayor Harriet Harman
Mayor of Southwark since 1999, former MP.

After nearly unseating Gordon Brown from Labour’s throne back in 2009, many expected Harman’s future in the party to be bright, rumours swirled of her receiving a senior cabinet post. Instead Harman has kept her head down in Southwark, making it into one of London’s model boroughs. Rumours abound that she longs for the Presidency, but allies claim she’s supporting Cooper.

• Strengths: Experienced and well known in the public, has no association with the coalition
• Weakness: Hasn’t been in the public eye for four years, can lightning strike twice?

- The New Statesman, 8th October 2013

 

[powerab]

Umunna officially started the primary season with a well-manicured launch rally

“Labour's Chuka Umunna announced his bid to become President in a Nottingham rally this morning. The 32-year-old Senator for London made the announcement after savaging Ed Balls. He is the first Labour figure to join the race. But he is likely to be joined by at least three more candidates, including Yvette Cooper and the Transport Secretary Andy Burnham. Mr Umunna this morning claimed he wanted to 'lead the effort' to get Labour back into Buckingham. It comes after senior figures ripped into the party's presumptive front-runner Ed Miliband. Speaking in Nottingham, East Midlands, Mr Umunna this morning insisted he could lead the party back to Buckingham. Mr Umunna said: I'm pleased today to be announcing that I will be standing for the leadership of the party. 'We can be winning in the Midlands. North, South, East, and West. We can do it. I want to lead that effort as part of a big Labour team. I want to get Labour back into Buckingham, building a fairer, more equal society - that's why we all joined the party in the first place.'” - Chuka chucks his hat into the ring, Tom McTague, Daily Mail (2013)

London Senator Chuka Umunna was the first to throw his hat in the ring in early October. In a slick US style announcement rally in Nottingham Umunna began his campaign, Umunna said he wanted to win back areas lost to Howard in 2009, like the East Midlands. Umunna said he had travelled out of London to announce his bid because it was the kind of place the party needed to target. Umunna pointed out that the party had lost working-class votes to UKIP and middle-class votes to the Conservatives. Umunna said he would make an "aspirational offer" to "middle income voters". "We cannot have a message that anybody is too rich or too poor to be a part of our movement. What the Labour Party does well is build a big tent of people of different backgrounds, creeds, colours, races, religions. And it is when we have an offer that is a big tent and appeals to a lot of people, that’s when we win." He also admitted the Labour Government was wrong to be running a deficit and would push even harder to reduce the deficit when in Buckingham. Umunna’s slogan was “A Fairer Society”

In his early 30s, Umunna would be by far the youngest post-war British leader if he won

Next to announce her bid on a Facebook video was East Midlands Senator Liz Kendall, another competitor for the Blairite torch. Liz Kendall too pushed away the Balls Government, saying she wanted to expand Labour’s vote to win over “aspirational” voters, as well as Labour’s core inner-city working class vote. "We talk about the bottom and top of society, about the minimum wage and zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. But we have too little to say to the majority of people in the middle." Her slogan was “A Fresh Start”

A few days later Yvette Cooper would confirm her candidacy in an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Neil. Seen as one of the favourites to win, Cooper had experience and was married to the Prime Minister. Cooper said she was the best placed candidate to unite the party, bringing together supporters, MPs and trade unions. She was seen as the candidate of the Brownite faction, not only being endorsed by her husband, but the word around Westminster was she had the backing of Gordon Brown himself, who was still a giant of the party. Cooper emphasised her role as a Former First Minister,portraying herself as the woman to reach out to left behind swing regions like Yorkshire. Cooper said the party needed to go further to support small towns and rural areas that had swung behind Michael Howard at the last election, promising to “loosen the grip of Whitehall”. Her slogan was “Proud of our Values”

"Those who harbour presidential ambitions of their own want to position themselves as “unifiers”. The anti-Miliband faction will need to re-brand. A failed primary bid by Yvette Cooper will mark the end of the Brownite grip on the party that delivered Ed Balls the leadership. A failed bid by Chuka Umunna will also draw the line under Blairism. If Umunna loses, no candidate who runs as a Blairite will ever lead Labour again. The second is that the modernisers and pragmatists that have not fallen for Milibands’s charms will have to agree to bury the hatchet. Then they will have to agree what they will do when they have buried it in their front-runner. Whilst the Blairites whisper "anyone but Miliband" in the Westminster tea rooms, it seems putting aside their egos and running a single candidate is beyond them. If Labour's moderates can't get their act together Miliband is the nominee they will get. He will be the candidate they deserve." - What Happens if Miliband Wins?, Dan Hodges, TotalPolitics (2013)

Next out of the gate was North West Senator Andy Burnham, who announced his bid at a barnstorming rally in Coventry. Burnham said the party had to build its “emotional connection” with the British people, harking back to 99 when the party united the country in a radical transformation. Burnham was wary of being seen as just the candidate of the unions, and his reference to 99 was a clear attempt to reach across factional lines. He added: “Our challenge is not to go left or right, to focus on one part of the country above another, but to rediscover the beating heart of Labour. And that is about the aspirations of everyone, speaking to them like we did in 1999.” He defined aspiration, a word used in the contest a great deal, as about “giving every single person the dream of a better life. It's about helping all our businesses, small and large, to get on and grow”. Burnham claimed: “Labour wins when it speaks to everyone and for the whole country. Yes for middle England but also Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It needs a nominee whose voice can carry into all the nations and regions of the Commonwealth.” Burnham’s slogan was “Build Better”

Burnham made his record on transport infrastructure a large part of his campaign

Following Burnham was the surprise entry of Yorkshire Senator Rachel Reeves. Reeves didn’t have a particularly large following or national presence and she had rarely been mentioned as a candidate in the press, but in an interview with the Telegraph she staked her claim to the Labour crown. The former top economist argued she was the candidate best placed to win credibility on the country's finances, where nearly every candidate lagged behind Howard. Her announcement in the right-wing Telegraph was also seen as signalling she could reach out to traditional Tory and Lib Dem voters. Reeves’ slogan was “Everyday Change”

“LabourList’s Mark Ferguson has noted the significance of Ed Miliband’s ending his boycott and writing an article for the Sun. It could be, he suggested, part of an effort to turn “Red Ed” into “Everyman Ed. A tribune of the people reaching out the people in the sorts of publications the people actually read. Rachel Reeve’s announcement article in the Telegraph today can be seen as a continuation of that process. This is all part of what the Fabians’ Marcus Roberts has identified, in a recent blog-post, as “Labour’s new ‘Blue Collar’ politics”. Increasingly Labour candidates are moving into centre-right publications to try and have their voices heard.” - The Sun is starting to shine on Labour, Peter Hoskin, ConservativeHome

Finally after waiting and biding his time, the main act of Labour’s internal drama announced his candidacy. In a speech to the Glasgow Fabian Society Miliband announced his candidacy saying he wanted to make the Presidency a “progressive force for change.” Miliband promised to run an “on the ground campaign” in and amongst local communities. When asked what his priorities would be as President, he emulated Tony Blair stating “climate, climate, climate”. Miliband promised to “unite and transform” the party in order to win back Buckingham. Ed Miliband’s slogan was “One Nation”.

Miliband portrayed himself as a progressive unifier against the populist Howard

As the days passed at the deadline to announce grew nearer, another candidate emerged from the shadows, former British Army Colonel Dan Jarvis. In a slick video on social media shot at his former army barracks, Jarvis promised to bring in a “new kind of politics” he admitted he had never held elected office, saying politicians couldn't provide the answers to Britain's big problems. Jarvis said the party needed to move out of its comfort zone, that his campaign would be “patriotic and progressive” promising to win the working class votes of areas like Nottinghamshire, where he grew up. Jarvis’ slogan was “Radicalism and Realism”

After other potential candidates like David Miliband, Harriet Harman, Mary Creagh and David Lammy ruled themselves out, the final candidate announced was West Midlands Senator Tristram Hunt. Hunt submitted his paperwork with just hours to go. Hunt, another candidate from the modernising wing of the party said he would work “day and night” to get into Buckingham, he said he would address concerns around globalisation and immigration, promising to be the “listening candidate, not the ranting candidate”. His slogan was “In the Heart of our Communities”

As the deadline passed Labour found itself with eight candidates to choose from, the board was set, and the party waited to see who would fire the first volley.

“Labour might have found a way to wriggle out of the straitjacket of spending caps. But it's going to have to overcome its natural urge to cling to power to achieve it. The story of the next Presidential election campaign, it's understood in Westminster, has been locked in stone for months. Labour will talk about living standards. And Michael Howard will reply by rubbishing Labour's economic credibility. So to win in 2014, Labour must break the great economic stalemate. The problem is it doesn't look like the big economic picture is going to change any time soon. Balls and co have known for a long time the next parliament isn't going to be fun for whichever government gets in power. One minister predicts 2017 will be the year when councils finally break under the strain of the remorseless spending caps. Now a picture is emerging of what Labour might actually do to escape this bind. At last we're starting to get an idea about what Labour might do to beat the Tories on the economy. The answer is to make our public services more human.” - How Miliband can end the economic stalemate, Alex Stevenson, Politics.cw (2013)

The elder Miliband opted not to have a third crack at a top job

“The 2013 Primary heralded the end of the Brownite era”, how far do you agree? (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

Will Micheal Howard face a primary challenge?

George Osborne and Ken Clarke have a problem, and that problem’s name is Michael Howard

By George Eaton

A lot can change in five years. Five years ago against the backdrop of a fatigued Labour Party and a global financial crisis, Micheal Howard led the Tories to their biggest victory in the history of the Commonwealth, picking up an unprecedented 40% of the vote in the first round. Now languishing at an approval rating of just 28% Howard has become a weight around the Conservatives' neck.

Howard's behaviour has become increasingly erratic in recent months, and meetings between him and the Parliamentary leadership are becoming less and less frequent. Rumours swirl that he informed Osborne he would be tabling a motion on Syria mere hours before his speech, allies of the Opposition Leader say Osborne is seething and looking for a way out.

It wasn’t always like this, in another life Osborne served as Howard’s confidant and Chief Speechwriter but years of politics have pushed the two apart and they disagree on everything from Europe to policing cuts. Senate Leader Clarke is even more militant about Howard’s removal, with some saying he ever threatens a challenge himself.

There is an accident Tory parable, “he who wields the knife never wears the crown” Osborne knows this, and knows it would be electoral suicide if he was seen publicly challenging the President. He also knows the dangers of a protracted primary challenge.

But something must be done, whisper the Osbornites in Commons tea rooms. Osborne loyalists point to Howard's advanced years and declining popularity, they argue all he would need was a sharp push to step down gracefully.

The question is who to challenge him?

The old Soldier
As the adage goes whoever challenges Howard will see their career ruined, perhaps irreversibly. Perhaps then the challenger should be someone who’s already peaked in their career, with nothing left to lose, someone like Kenneth Clarke. At 74 years old and giant of the Senate, Clarke has nowhere to go but down, why not go out with a bang?

The Friendly Face
Oxford Mayor David Cameron is a strong option, whilst not known massively outside of the South East, he is telegenic and charismatic. More importantly he is loyal to Osborne, the two being good friends since they were students. At just 45 years old Cameron could be the figure to represent passing the torch and if Howard was to step aside, you can be assured Cameron would quickly pass that torch to his old school chum.

The Glass Breaker
If change is what you’re after why not Justine Greening? The ambitious London Senator is young, media friendly, moderate and a most importantly, a woman. However if you're George Osborne that ambition is a double edged sword. If Howard steps out the way, Greening might not back down after doing all the dirty work.

The Loyal Lieutenant
Former International Development Secretary Jeremy Hunt was one of Osborne’s biggest supporters in Government. Since being turfed out of office in 2011 he’s gone dark and hasn’t sought any further elected office. He could combine the “nothing left to lose” attitude of Clarke with the youth of Cameron or Greening

If a challenge happens and whomever the Osbornites run, they will be playing a very dangerous game, if they roll the dice and lose they could spark a Tory civil war, or worse put a Labour politician in Buckingham. If they win they could put one of their own in the highest office of the land. The rewards are great but the risks are greater. Now the question is, who dares roll the dice?

- The New Statesman, 13th October 2013

 

[powerab]

This was Miliband's second go at running for President after his failed bid in 2009

"Older, wiser and with something to prove, a new Miliband could be that credible and formidable voice our movement needs. On the party’s left, the story of Ed’s 2009 bid is read as one of wasted potential. No less than Owen Jones described Miliband as “a man who had the right diagnosis of Britain’s broken social order. A man torn between the radicalism of his father and his time as a New Labour apparatchik”. Few people get a chance to reshape their own legacy. If Ed won, that would be a reason to be cheerful indeed. If 2013 Ed wants to win where 2009 Ed failed he'll need to learn from his past mistakes. He's the front-runner now and like Gordon before him all the knives are pointed at his back." - Ed Miliband has transformed since 2009, Mohammad Zaheer, The Independent (2013)

Due to his name recognition and base of support Ed Miliband quickly garnered a decent but not insurmountable lead of around 6 points to his nearest competitors. In the early days of the primary a battle quickly emerged between Burnham, Cooper and Umunna as to who would become Miliband’s greatest rival, and it was in the battles between these campaigns that fighting became particularly fierce. In one particularly nasty row between the Umunna and Burnham camps, Umunna compared Burnham to a “petulant child” “screaming at the electorate rather than trying to meet them where they’re at”. Umunna quickly built his brand as a “straight shooter”, attacking the Balls Government as much as he did Michael Howard, whilst it won him no favours amongst party elites, the near constant press coverage boosted him in the polls.

Umunna’s early surge quickly squeezed the vote of the other traditionally Blairite candidates, polling had Hunt on just 6%, Kendall on 3% and Reeves on just 2%, the three of them all struggling to make a name for themselves in the shadow of the slick, media friendly Umunna. After just a few weeks in the campaign Rachel Reeves announced she was withdrawing, citing a lack of funds, narrowing the field down to just seven.

Dan Jarvis also had a strong early game for a virtually unknown candidate, out-passing established Senators like Hunt and Kendall, Jarvis was breathing down the neck of the “middle three” as the press dubbed them. Jarvis’ background and story was popular amongst low-information Labour supporters. Jarvis used his pundit credentials to make regular appearances on shows like “Good Morning Britain” and he would tour Midlands and Yorkshire towns in small American style “town halls”.

Jarvis at a "Town Hall" in Sheffield

Despite this the advantage remained with Miliband, he quickly received high profile backing from the GMB and Unison. He also received endorsements from senior Labour politicians such as Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan and Senator Hilary Benn, with a well-financed campaign and a strong name recognition Miliband still remained the bookies favourite and the candidate to beat, polling at 29%.

It was in this atmosphere that the seven remaining candidates made their way to Bradford Cathedral for the Primary Debate. Bradford was an interesting city to hold the debates. In the 2009 Howard wave, Labour had lost the Mayoralty to the Tory Philip Davies, losing the outer wards of the city, whilst the inner wards turned to the far-left Respect, netting them 7 seats on the City Council, it was a strong example of the dilemma facing Labour, turn right and lose the inner cities, turn left and lose the countryside.

Yvette Cooper was chosen to speak first. The debate was a big moment for Cooper, she had to prove she was interesting, and more importantly human, her detractors often criticised her for talking in academic policy terms rather than telling a convincing story. She opened by telling a story of how 20 years ago she had been forced to rely on benefits after falling ill. Aged 24 she had developed chronic fatigue syndrome and had been forced to take a year out of work to recover, commenting; “I was desperate to get back to work; I hated every minute of it. That is why we need to challenge this president's rhetoric at every turn, when he talks about benefit scroungers he talks about people who need just a little help to get by. I don’t believe we need to choose between our head or our heart. We can stand up for people and we can win elections but only as one united party.” Cooper’s speech was well received and she had a strong night overall, she managed to cut through her robotic image to present her more human side. Her rhetoric around uniting head and heart and bringing together won her support among many Labour supporters.

“We learned several things from last night’s first major debate. Almost all of them are bad for the Labour party. The winner – if you set aside Michael Howard – was Yvette Cooper. She is, as many people suspected, the most solid performer of all the candidates on the ballot. Calm, professional, polished. Yvette is the quintessential safe pair of hands. Too safe. Each position she adopts is calculated to place herself in a position of perfect equilibrium. “Tea or coffee, Yvette?” “Well, I love tea. But it would be a serious mistake to ignore the importance of coffee." She is also in danger of diluting her greatest strength, which is her strength. There is an inner steel in Yvette Cooper, but for some reason she’s trying to mask it. She is trying to humanise herself, and instead she is mumsifying herself. She’s been told to smile a lot, but that means she’s adopting Gordon Brown’s disconcerting habit of grinning at random, and inappropriate, moments.” - Who won the Labour Primary Debate?, Dan Hodges, The Telegraph (2013)

The other standout performance of the debate was Colonel Dan Jarvis. Jarvis had the benefit of never holding elected office, thus he had little in the way of a record to attack. Jarvis too engaged in “straight talking” politics, Jarvis harked to the various northern small towns he had visited in his town halls. In an answer to a question on workers rights he gave an emotional speech “Employment rights should never be for sale. These were hard fought for, over many years, and today we should seek to protect them for future generations. Together we remember those who have been killed, made ill, or injured by their own or someone else's work. And we renew our commitment to demanding safe and healthy work for all. Let us remember the dead. And fight for the living.”

Jarvis gained his most senior endorser in Business Secretary John Healey

Jarvis’ story was compelling, a working class outsider who had fought for his country and was now running for office. His tone was unashamedly blue collar and populist. Jarvis’ main aim in the debate was to prove he was a loyal Labour man, and he accomplished this in spades. He spoke of his parent’s background as Labour activists and his loyal support for the trade union movement.

On the other end of the spectrum perhaps the biggest loser of the debate was Senator Liz Kendall, already struggling to be seen amongst the flashier Umunna and Hunt. Kendall received boos from the audience when she seemingly tried to outflank Howard on immigration. “I am angry about people trying to get into this country, scrambling onto lorries in Calais. If you come here from Europe, you should come to work and not claim benefits. You should respect the community you live in and our culture. For people outside Europe we need a strict points-based system like they have in Australia.” Kendall’s hawkish attitudes on immigration didn’t play well in the diverse audience of Bradford Labour supporters.

"The reasons why we lost aren’t complicated. They’re simple. We decided that the British public had shifted to the left because we wished it to be so. We never dealt with the central economic case of our opponents about where we fell short. We didn’t have answers to the big questions people were asking about THEIR future and that of our country – on jobs, immigration or the public finances. We didn’t lose because of Gordon's personality. We lost because of our politics. We need to meet people where they are at, not where they would like to be." - Liz Kendall, Labour Primary Debate (2013)

Liz Kendall did not have a good night at the debate

The most embarrassing part of the debate was when Kendall claimed that Howard had a policy of a legally mandated budget surplus, when she was informed this was untrue by the debate’s moderator, John Pienaar, she doubled down and criticised Pienaar for calling her out, languishing at just 5% in the polls Kendall couldn’t afford a bad debate performance and it spelled bad news for her campaign.

Ed Miliband too struggled in the debate, whilst he didn’t have any major gaffs like Kendall he had a large target on his back, coming under fire from all sides he struggled to respond. Miliband’s notes for the debate had been leaked to the media hours before in an embarrassing display. Ed’s aides knew his main challenge was his perceived “softness” so Miliband tried to be aggressive in the debate but many of the attacks fell flat. Miliband was mocked by many in the press for referring to himself as a “warrior”. Shortly after the debate a parody Twitter account name “tough guy Ed” appeared, the account challenging Russian President Mendev to “throw down”.

The other three candidates made very little impact, Burnham failed to differentiate himself from Miliband and spoke the least out of the three, whilst Hunt and Umunna failed to score any memorable lines. As the dust settled on the debate snap polls showed Yvette Cooper as the winner of the debate with 29% of respondents saying she was the most convincing, followed by Jarvis on 25%, Hunt on 20%, Umunna on 11%, Burnham on 7%, Miliband with 6% and Kendall on just 3%.

After an embarrassing debate Kendall withdrew and threw her weight behind Umunna. Miliband had taken a beating from the debate, whilst still in the lead his polling fell to 27%, followed by Umunna followed with 21%, Burnham with 17%, Cooper on 15%, Jarvis polling at 12%, and Hunt was at the bottom of the pack at 6%

“Liz Kendall has said she is no longer running for President, instead giving her backing to Chuka Umunna. In a speech in her home town of Leicester, Ms Kendall said Mr Umunna would be able to confront the "big challenges" facing Labour. Responding to his endorsement, Mr Umunna said his fellow Senator was "a big talent" and he was "delighted" to have his support. In his speech, Mr Hunt also criticised Ed Miliband's "timid" approach to the election. Mr Miliband has been accused of pursuing a 35% strategy - focusing on core Labour voters and disaffected Lib Dems. Ms Kendall said Labour needed a "100% strategy" that was "broad-based" and "forward-looking". She urged the party not to "turn inwards". She suggested that what was needed was a return to the combination of economic discipline and social renewal. "Not since 1983 have we been so out of step with the prevailing mood of the nation," she told the rally.” - Liz Kendall backs Chuka Umunna for President, BBC News (2013)

Umunna was quickly consolidating the modernisers behind his campaign

Critically assess the importance of TV debates in Presidential Primaries (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

Yvette Cooper on her immigration policy (BBC Radio 4 Interview)

By Shaun Ley

SL - Now I am delighted to have with me in the studio Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper one of the six Labour candidates running to be President of the Commonwealth. Secretary Cooper thank you for joining us.

YC - Thank you for having me Shaun

SL - Now I think the most obvious question, of the hundreds of Labour MPs, Senators, Cabinet Members, Premiers, why are you best placed to be President?

YC - Well I think the main thing our country needs is experience. Whoever is President will be dealing with big issues from day one. I’ve spent several years as a regional Premiere, and of course I’ve spent the last couple years as Foreign Secretary dealing with the issues our country faces head on.

SL - Yes you have quite an impressive resume Secretary Cooper, you’d have thought an incumbent Foreign Secretary would be storming ahead of the pack but instead you’re currently fourth in the polls and around twelve points behind Ed Miliband, the front-runner. Why is that?

YC - Well election day is still several weeks away, and what I’m doing is travelling up and down this country talking to Labour supporters to try and show them why I am the best choice.

SL - That’s all well and good Secretary Cooper but again you hold a great office of state. I understand Colonel Jarvis or Senator Hunt having to put the work in to get their name out there, but people should really know who you are and what you stand for. Isn’t the truth that voters just don’t like you?

YC - No I think that’s unfair, I think when you’ve been in politics as long as I have you tend to develop some baggage, and during primaries we often see minor candidates with brief surges or peaks of interest. But what we in the Labour Party had to be asking ourselves who is best placed to beat Michael Howard? This isn’t the time for an amateur. Howard is too dangerous for the party to be messing around. Poll after poll has shown I’m the best placed to beat Howard and that should really be our priority .

SL - Well my question to you Secretary Cooper then is why aren’t you winning? A sitting Foreign Secretary coming fourth, it's a bit embarrassing isn’t it?

YC - Well I think with some of the candidates there is a slight case of telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. That we can win this election just by turning out our own base and picking up a couple Greens.

SL - You mean Senator Miliband?

YC - Well I’m not naming names but I think to win this election we need to reach out to people we might not necessarily agree with, Conservative voters, UKIP voters

SL - BNP voters?

YC - Well I think the hatred espoused by the BNP and BDP to be absolutely vile, but a lot of their voters are former Labour supporters, yes I can think we can win them back.

SL - How do you intend to win them back? With points-based immigration? That didn’t go well for Liz Kendall.

YC - Well controls and limits are important. I recognise we should have transitional controls in place for Eastern Europe. And the last Labour Government was slow to bring in the Australian style points based system. As a result immigration – and particularly low skilled immigration – is too high, and it is right to bring it down.

SL - Secretary Cooper, thank you very much.

- BBC Radio 4, 18th October 2013

 

[powerab]

Cooper tried to build on her debate momentum by making as many campaign stops as possible

“It wasn't supposed to be this way. By now, Yvette Cooper was supposed to the Prime Minister, serving under her mentor – the President Gordon Brown. In 2011, after her political mentor Gordon Brown was defeated, Ms Cooper stood aside to let Mr Balls stand for the Labour leadership. Many analysts thought Labour's power couple had chosen the wrong person, with Rosie Winterton as the only woman on the ballot paper. But with Mr Balls firmly in Downing Street, some believe Ms Cooper's time has come. The mother of three has a strong chance to become Labour's nominee. It has been a long time coming for the 42-year-old Foreign Secretary. As a teenager she would reportedly tell anyone who would listen at her comprehensive that she wanted to be prime minister.” - The Rise of Yvette Cooper, Tom McTague, Daily Mail (2013)

As the primary race moved into its final stretch Yvette Cooper’s campaign tried to capitalise on the momentum of the TV debates, performing a blitz of TV and print appearances. She also received several high profile endorsements including Southwark Mayor Harriet Harman, Former Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan, and the most important endorsement from former Prime Minister Gordon Brown who gave a barnstorming speech for her in the Yorkshire city of Wakefield, with both the Burnham and Hunt campaigns fading and Jarvis too far behind to mount a serious challenge, the primary was quickly shifting into a three-way race.

The debate has thinned the field out somewhat

Jarvis too hoped to gain some ground from his debate, donors came flooding into his campaign for the final stretch and he received the endorsement of former Yorkshire Premier David Blunkett. Jarvis was a novelty being the first “non-politician” to run for elected office, and focus groups showed Jarvis as exceptionaly popular, with more and more ordinary people recognising who he was.

Meanwhile the Andy Burnham campaign, once a front runner, was cratering. A boring performance at the debate saw him haemorrhaging votes to Ed Miliband, his problem would be further compounded when in a major gaffe he said a woman could be President “when the time is right.” Andy Burnham was accused of being “out of touch”, “very tired” or “very sexist” after appearing to suggest the time was not right for a woman President. Asked in a BBC Radio 5 debate if there should be a female President, he responded: “When the time is right.” After gasps from some members of the studio audience, the candidate tried to clarify his position. “When the right candidate comes forward. It could be now, it could be in the future. Who knows?”

The clumsy remarks were attacked by the North East's Senate President Helen Goodman, who backed Yvette Cooper for the top job. She said: “Andy must be a) out of touch, b) very tired or else c) very sexist. To be fair, on balance it is either a or b.” Fellow Cooper supporter Diana Johnson MP said: “What on earth does Andy mean? Is he suggesting that even now, in 2013, the Labour Party isn't ready for a woman nominee? Or that the country isn’t ready? Or that women aren’t ready? After 100 years of campaigning for women’s equality are we saying we don’t think a woman can do the top job?”

Burnham's gaffe caused his campaign to leak voters to Yvette Cooper

“I want to start with leadership. Leadership is about risks and difficult decisions. It is about those lonely moments when you have to peer deep into your soul. I'm running for the nomination, it is hard for my family, but Labour needs to turn the page and I am the best person to do it. I faced a decision about whether to stand up to Rupert Murdoch. It wasn’t the way things had been done in the past, but it was the right thing to do so I did it. And together we faced them down. And then I faced an even bigger decision about whether the country should go to war. The biggest decision any Senator faces, the biggest decision any Senate faces, the biggest decision any party faces. All of us were horrified by the appalling chemical weapons attacks in Syria. But when I stood on the stage four years ago, running for President the first time, I said we would learn the lessons of Iraq. It would have been a rush to war, it wasn’t the right thing for our country. So I said no. It was the right thing to do.” - Ed Miliband Rally Speech in Bristol (2013)

Ed Miliband also struggled in the last few weeks, whilst most polls showed him as the front-runner the gap between him, Cooper and Umunna was becoming narrower and narrower. With some pundits commenting the electorate had reached “peak Miliband”. Miliband was facing increasing scrutiny from both the media and his Labour opponents on his ambitious spending plans, especially when faced with the “iron clad” discipline of Balls and Cable.

In an interview with Channel 4, Miliband stumbled and said he did not know how long it would take to get borrowing down but suggested "my point is this, over a six-year period we will be more effective at getting borrowing down over the medium term". Miliband’s economic policy seemed muddled and confused, moving from radical social democracy to austerity-lite seemingly on a dime. Labour List, a sympathetic Labour blog, suggested Miliband needed to have the courage of his convictions. Blairite MPs said if he was not prepared to embrace the political logic of his Keynesian position he needed to abandon it.

Despite his background as an economics professor, Miliband struggled to articulate his vision for the country's finances

At the same time on the Blairite wing of the party, the Hunt campaign was stagnating, with the Blairites solidly behind Umunna there wasn’t any market for an older whiter posher Blairite with a less convincing story, with David Miliband and Tony Blair falling in behind Umunna there was very little hope for Hunt’s campaign to break through, whilst advisers had pushed him to drop out, Hunt was determined to fight until the end.

“Given his ethnicity (his late father was Nigerian), he's been spoken of as 'Britain's Barack Obama'. Umunna is irritated by the label. 'It's never been something I've encouraged,' he has said. 'I want people to look at me as me, not through the prism of someone else's personality.' But while some who attach the Obama tag do so out of laziness, others see in Umunna something that gives the likeness a deeper resonance. He's got that same relaxed charm and lucidity; the easy, unfazed way of speaking that marks out a natural communicator. Indeed, he's been likened to Tony Blair as someone who seems to have a ready empathy with anyone he meets - be it a captain of industry or a teenage hoodie. There's a coolness, a self-assurance about Umunna that is quite exceptional, which doesn't spill over into arrogance. Nonetheless, he has a level gaze and a considered manner that can be disconcerting. He is witty. He talks the talk.” - Chuka Umunna, Chris Blackhurst, Management Today (2013)

The Umunna camp was also having problems, after his meteoric rise in the first few weeks of the campaign, Umunna had seemingly plateaued, after ruthlessly consolidating the right of the party he struggled to win over voters from outside his faction. Many supporters, especially union members, increasingly referred to Umunna as “slimy” or “arrogant” in focus groups, with Cooper fast catching up to him Umunna needed one big push to win the nomination.

It was under this backdrop that Labour supporters made their way to Eastbourne to hear the announcement of the winner. Last minute polls were jittery with some showing Miliband the winner, some Cooper and some Umunna. As NEC Chair Angela Eagle rose to announce the results, her declaration would decide the fate of the Labour Party, and the future of the Commonwealth.

As the preferences were tallied and lower tier candidates eliminated, the picture became clearer and clearer. Ed Miliband had achieved a narrow victory, it would be the environmentally conscious Senator who would lead the party to Buckingham. “Professor Ed” was now the British left’s best hope.

“Ed Miliband has hit out at the Daily Mail over an article it ran calling his father, Ralph, "the man who hated Britain" in his victory speech in Eastbourne. The Labour nominee said he was "not prepared to allow his [father's] good name to be denigrated in this way" after the article in the newspaper. He expressed his deep anger about the piece and reveal that the newspaper had agreed to publish a response from him this week. The essay examined the politics of the academic, adding "the answer should disturb everyone who loves this country". The article states: "As for the country that gave him and his family protection, Miliband wrote: 'The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are the most nationalist people in the world … you sometimes want them almost to lose [the war] to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the continent … To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation'. "This adolescent distaste for the British character didn't stop him spending the rest of his life here." - Ed Miliband hits out at Daily Mail over article about his father, Patrick Wintour, The Guardian (2013)

Define “Milibandism” (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)

 

[powerab]

A Mail online graphic from an article alleging Cameron was days away from launching a Presidential bid

"Senior Tory Bernard Jenkin has dismissed the idea that Michael Howard could face a serious primary challenge. Speaking earlier to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said: "It is for the birds. The idea that changing the nominee is another quick fix - we must avoid the idea there is some kind of silver bullet to get us out of the hole we are in. What polls show is there is no such thing as the centre ground, there is no great pile of voters in the middle to be harvested by politicians. What people are looking for are people to tell the truth. Michael is that truth talker, Michael is the one to lead us into the next election. A primary challenge would look conniving, childish and frankly cynical." - Backbencher dismisses Cameron leadership challenge, ITV News (2013)

As the Labour Primary raged, in the blue camp allies of President Howard were desperate to avoid a primary challenge. High profile moderates including Senator Greening and Secretary Hunt were threatened and given lavish promises in equal measure. Howard-backing Senator Ian Duncan Smith commented the party had “descended into some kind of cold war”. Team Howard knew a challenge was coming, but they knew not who from or when the first volley would be fired.

As it turns out the first volley would be fired in Oxford. On a cold late-October in Radcliffe square, surrounded by supporters and the nation's press, the city’s mayor, 45 year old David Cameron ascended on stage to give his speech and announce his candidacy. Cameron’s speech had an optimistic, progressive tone. He talked about helping to achieve the country’s “full potential” he talked about the “vigour” of the British people. Finally he spoke of the “tough decisions” leadership required.

Cameron had hinted at as Presidential bid on LBC

At this point Cameron turned his guns firmly on Howard. It was not right, Cameron said that a 73 year old would be seeking an unprecedented third term, rather than standing aside and letting new blood take over. It was not right that a Conservative President with an approval rating in the 20s would be so arrogant as to try and cling to office at the risk of letting a radical Labour President in. Finally it was not right that said President engaged in divisive rhetoric on everything from Europe to the Middle East.

It was with that Mayor David Cameron announced his bid to become President of the Commonwealth of Britain. Cameron’s speech would mark the first challenge to an incumbent President in a decade, since Livingstone’s challenge in 2003. The famously loyal and disciplined Conservative party was breaking out into civil war, a great gift for its political opponents and a great humiliation for President Howard.

Cameron’s announcement was met by mixed responses in the press. Many, especially those to the right of the political spectrum, saw Cameron’s bid as a cynical ploy, with his strings being pulled by Clarke and Osborne. It was yet another example of the all-encompassing liberal europhillic elite trying to turf out a loyal and patriotic President.Cameron was also mocked for being a political nobody, the Mayor of one of Britain's smallest cities with just 150,000 people. How could someone with so little experience hope to become Britain’s President?

“In the midst of the present challenges we should plan for the future. We must look at what the world will look like when the difficulties in the Commonwealth have been overcome. The biggest danger to the Conservative Party comes not from those who advocate change, but from those who denounce new thinking as heresy. In its long history the Conservatives Party has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point. And my point is this. More of the same will not secure a long-term future for the Commonwealth. More of the same will not see the Commonwealth keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. More of the same will not bring the Commonwealth any closer to its citizens. More of the same will just produce more of the same: less competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs. And that will make our country weaker, not stronger. That is why we need fundamental, far-reaching change. So let me set out my vision for a new Commonwealth, fit for the 21st century.” - David Cameron announcement speech (2013)

Slick and TV-savvy Cameron knew he was an unknown, thus first impressions would be crucial

On the flip side pundits in the centre-right welcomed Cameron’s intervention. Howard was a politician for a different generation, he would be nearly 80 by the end of his third term and his politics on issues from euro to social freedoms were out of step with the majority of the public. Many Tory elites believe something had to be done about Howard and were weary of a young Ed Miliband or Chuka Umunna running circles around him on the debate stage. Howard received endorsements from the Economist and the Financial Times and saw favourable coverage in many other papers.

Cameron quickly rallied a team behind him, appointing rising star MP Sam Giymah as his campaign’s chair. He also raised a significant war chest, many big Tory donors including the millionaire Timothy Sainsbury gave generous donations to the Cameron campaign. Whilst openly Osborne kept the Cameron campaign at a distance, pledging to “let the debate play out on both sides”, behind the scenes Osborne was shuttling his deep-pocketed supporters to his old school friend.

“And look at the Tories. Floundering into civil war, a President unable to hold his own party together. It's a mess, Micheal Howard and George Osborne boast about fixing the economy, but ordinary people in Britain don’t feel it. Yet it’s no surprise that they are so out of touch with ordinary people. The supporters of the Tory Party are dwindling; they are funded by cash from their friends in the City, bankers and hedge fund managers. They listen to their big donors, the corporate lobbyists, the richest and the most powerful. That’s why we say Michael Howard is not only out of touch with ordinary British families, he is always standing up for the wrong people. It’s the way the Tory Party operates. It’s in their DNA. The Labour Party is very different. We want to govern in the interests of all the people and not just a narrow elite. We are a One Nation Labour Party that aspires to be a One Nation Labour Government.” - Building a Mass Movement, Ed Miliband, New Statesman (2013)

Tory divisions were a gift to Labour

Now the cameras turned to Howard? How would he react? Would he head Cameron’s call for him to step down with dignity? Would he see the writing on the wall and prevent his party from falling into a damning primary, or would he hold fast to his record and his principles? As the press gathered at Buckingham for a press conference Howard summoned his closest friends and confidants to make a decision. Nicky Morgan, his former Chief of Staff turned Senator encouraged Howard to stand aside, but pledged loyalty if he chose not to, whilst another ally, Former Secretary Michael Gove urged him to fight on. Eventually Howard made his decision.

Howard’s speech focused on the concept of moving forward, he talked about his achievements as President, rescuing the Iran hostages, keeping hold of the European rebate and spearheading policy on organised crime. Howard spoke of the danger the country faced, from the “radical” politics of the traffic-light coalition to the encroaching “ever-closer union” of the EU.

As Howard's speech began to wrap up he finally arrived on the issue of Europe. Howard reiterated his desire to hold a referendum, he outlined his plan for a robust renegotiation and devolution of powers, and his will for the British people to have the final say. Howard stated he intended to see his presidency and his policy through, that he wouldn’t back down, that he would still seek a third term as President.

“Michael Howard has now been leader of the Commonwealth for longer than Tony Blair was. Doubts continue to be expressed about Howard's leadership. Howard has not shown much ability to set a policy or media narrative since he won his second term. Perhaps he is not trying to, or at least, not trying hard enough. On a more personal level, his own ratings are nothing to write home about and the scores for personality attributes should worry him. Having said all that, I expect Howard to lead the Conservatives into the election. For one thing, the Conservatives have no appetite for removing it's nominee. It would be difficult to justify a change; it's not obvious that Conservatives have an alternative nominee who'd do better or wants to try. But Howard being odds-on to stay until the election doesn’t mean there's no value elsewhere.” - Would stability be the prime concern if Howard went?, David Herdson, Political Betting (2013)

Unity became Howard's buzzword as he did the media rounds

“David Cameron was the best candidate the Osbornites had to take on Howard”, discuss (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)