Wednesday, 19 November 2014

UKIP policies could increase immigration



UKIP’s policies could actually cause an increase in immigration. In view of Nigel Farage’s statement (apparently contradicting Mark Reckless) that UKIP immigration policies would not be retrospective, many EU migrants would be likely to rush to the country before the controls were implemented.

Migrants who had come to the UK temporarily might not leave, if they thought that they might not be able to come back again.

Migrants who were still allowed to come to the UK would on average come from further away and therefore be more likely to want to stay longer, bring families or start families in the UK.

Under UKIP’s policies, with a withdrawal from the EU, the outflow of mainly older British people, especially to Spain and France would reduce or could even be reversed.

The current system of migration and border control does not work well. There are estimated to be around 500,000 illegal immigrants in the UK, but no-one knows the real figure. The system is still very porous, even after successive governments have tried to improve the system. Illegal immigrants and gangs would be more likely to exploit the creaking system as it would be under added strain.

And then there are UKIP’s climate change policies. The impact of uncontrolled climate change could dwarf all the other issues, when it comes to migration. Few people would leave Britain if the climate became warmer and sea levels rose. However, virtually uncontrollable surges of refugees could be displaced by drought, storms, floods, drinking water shortages and rising sea levels in countries such as Bangladesh and parts of Africa. Many could seek refuge in the UK.

Has the UKIP tide turned?



Will Rochester and Strood come to be seen as the turning of the tide for UKIP? The turn of a tide is always difficult to spot at the time. Waves come and go, but eventually the direction becomes clear.

The peak support in a national opinion poll for UKIP so far is 25% in the Survation poll on 10 October 2014. Survation tend to show the highest figures for UKIP support among the polling companies, but their more recent polls have shown UKIP support below the peak at 23%. Populus tend to show the lowest levels of UKIP support. Their peak figure was 15% and their most recent poll showed 11% support for UKIP. The recent trend in UKIP support from all the major polling companies is down, not up.

The peak of 25% UKIP support compares to the peak for the Liberal Democrats of 34% before the 2010 election and 50.5% for the SDP/Liberal Alliance in 1981.

The scale of defections to UKIP is still much smaller than those to the SDP in the 1980s. The SDP received 28 sitting Labour MPs and one Conservative.

The history of new parties is one of fragility. The British Union of Fascists, the SDP, the New Party, Veritas, Common Wealth and the Referendum Party all came and went. UKIP has shown a tendency to fragment. Of the 13 UKIP MEPs elected in 2009, five (38%) had left the party by the time of the 2014 European election.

Overall, by-election victors who capture a seat from another party have on average around a 50% rate of retaining the seat at the following general election. The opinion poll from Lord Ashcroft completed on 10 November showed UKIP on course to win the Rochester and Strood by-election on 20 November, but likely to lose the seat at the general election in May 2015.

It is not easy to spot the change in a tide. But tides do tend to turn at some point.

Monday, 10 November 2014

Is Ed Miliband Doomed?

Doomed can be defined as unavoidably destined for failure.

If winning an overall majority at the next election is the only outcome to be regarded as a success, then it is highly likely that both David Cameron and Ed Miliband (and all the other party leaders) are heading for failure. The opinion polls point to another hung parliament, as at the 2010 election.

Success, in the current circumstances should more realistically be defined as emerging as prime minister, whether it is with an overall majority, a viable minority government or as head of a coalition. This definition gives both Ed Miliband and David Cameron a realistic prospect of success.

Under this definition, one of the two - Miliband or Cameron - will almost certainly succeed and the other will fail, but which one? Mathematically, the prospects for each look fairly similar. Opinion poll ratings for the Conservatives and Labour are pretty much neck and neck, but moving in the Conservatives’ favour.

However, the current boundaries and distribution of votes favour the Labour Party over the Conservatives. Labour has more urban seats with lower turnouts, smaller electorates and smaller majorities, so the party’s votes tend to translate at a better exchange rate into seats.

These factors have been shown to work in practice when Labour won 355 seats in 2005 with 35.2% of the vote, while the Conservatives won 36.1% of the vote in 2010, but only achieved 306 seats.

So, the distortions in the system could compensate Labour for being behind in terms of votes. If the total number of seats for Labour and the Conservatives are more or less equal, then the next prime minister may well be the person best able to form a coalition. David Cameron has proved that he can do this, but his party do not want him to do it again. Labour on the other hand, although historically a more coalition-averse party, would have a greater willingness to form a coalition and probably a wider range of potential coalition partners to choose from.

Ed Miliband’s weaknesses could turn into strengths in building a coalition. A modest, consensual and self-effacing leader without too much dogmatic attachment to particular policies could well be a coalition-maker.

So, the short answer is No, Ed Miliband is not doomed. He may yet fail, but between here and success or failure are intentions which have to be turned into votes, votes that have to be translated into seats and, potentially, a coalition-building exercise. It is still perfectly feasible to imagine Ed Miliband just clearing each of these hurdles.

Thursday, 6 November 2014

John Lewis – never knowingly underhand


Employment blacklisting is not new – probably dating back at least to the First World War. One of the more surprising organisations to attempt to employ it was the John Lewis Partnership, as I found out in documents at the Parliamentary Archives, while I was researching for my forthcoming biography of William Wedgwood Benn, First Viscount Stansgate.

The John Lewis Partnership is generally highly-regarded for its service, partly as a result of the motivation of its workers who are partners in the business and who receive a share of the profits. They are also widely consulted on issues affecting the running of the business, which operates the John Lewis and Waitrose shops.

On 7 May 1949 the John Lewis Partnership’s house newspaper, the Gazette, carried a report that Colin Thornton-Kemsley, described elsewhere as the Partnership’s Director of Public Relations, who was also a National Liberal MP (effectively a Conservative), had proposed to the Central Management of the John Lewis Partnership that ‘all present Partners and future applicants for membership of the Partnership be required to sign a declaration that they are neither members of the Communist Party, nor in sympathy with the doctrines of that Party.’

There were, in 1949, two democratically-elected Communist MPs in the House of Commons. The John Lewis Partnership would effectively have been saying that someone who was acceptable as an MP, involved in issues of national security and finance, would not have been an acceptable person to sell buttons in a John Lewis shop.

The proposal raised some interesting ethical debates. It was democratically discussed within the business, but anyone who was blacklisted could have lost their job. This might have applied to someone who voted for one of the democratically-elected Communist MPs, as that voter presumably could have been deemed to be sympathetic to the Communist Party’s doctrines. Looked at another way, workers would have been put under pressure about how they voted, on pain of losing their job if it became known that they voted for certain candidates.

Viscount Stansgate raised the matter in the House of Lords and, from the evidence I have seen, the proposal never seems to have been implemented.

At least the John Lewis Partnership was open and democratic about its proposal and all partners had an opportunity to express their opinion.

Never knowingly underhand!