Crash Bang Wallace
Libertarian political blog from Mark Wallace; political opinion, breaking news and exclusivesEven the Lib Dems have abandoned the EU
Posted on July 12, 2011ConservativeHome has already drawn attention to the boom in anti-EU feeling among Conservative voters in the new Angus Reid survey – a poll which also shows support for leaving the EU outright is now at 49% against a mere 25% who want to stay in. It’s clear those of us who have been arguing for a long time that the EU is, in Dan Hannan’s words, making us “poorer, less democratic and less free” are making serious headway.
Looking at the tables, there’s an interesting message for the main party on the pro-EU side of the divide, too. The Lib Dems have traditionally been cheerleaders for the EU, ever closer union and Euro membership – but now those are small minority opinions among even their own voters.
Asked “If a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should adopt the euro as its currency were held tomorrow, how would you vote?”, Lib Dems voted 80% No to 10% Yes.(It was 92% to 4% among Tories and 79% to 11% among Labour, interestingly making Labour the most pro-Euro party).
The answer to the question “If a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union (EU) were held tomorrow, how would you vote?” was even more surprising. Lib Dem voters would vote in favour of leaving at a rate of 39% to 34%. (Conservatives support leaving by 66% to 16%, and Labour by a margin of 42% to 32%.)
This is another confirmation of how out of touch Westminster has become with the voters, but also of how even the Lib Dems have lost their pro-EU and pro-Euro base. Surely it’s time for them to ditch this out of touch, vote-losing article of faith?
EU cracks open in Westminster and Fleet Street
Posted on February 28, 2011For those interested in eurosceptic politics, there are some serious rumblings under way in the Westminster jungle. The tectonic plates of Westminster perception are starting to shift – almost imperceptibly, but it’s still happening and it’s not unreasonable to read into their movement some hope for the future.
Politics is as much about perception as about reality. There have been polls for ages showing the public dislike of Brussels, and the true harm being done to the economy and our legal system is well-documented. Despite that, the feeling has persisted in the Westminster Village that no-one is interested, or worse that discussing the issue marks one out as toxic. That’s due to all sorts of factors, not least the feedback loop of people who think that telling their friends that it is so, who then reinforce their own assumption and so on ad infinitum.
But now cracks are starting to appear in those assumptions. When The Freedom Association launched the Better Off Out campaign in 2006, its aim was not to convert every MP overnight but to demonstrate that the doomsayers were mistaken.
By proving that the sky did not fall in on the heads of Philip Davies, Philip Hollobone or Douglas Carswell, they started a process of erosion that has seen many other MPs feel free to speak out on the topic. There are now 21 MPs as well as numerous MEPs, councillors and Members of the Northern Irish Assembly who are signed up.
Davies, Hollobone and Carswell turned marginal seats at 2005 into hefty majorities in 2010 despite or because of their EU views – they drank from a supposedly poisoned chalice and they are in hearty health.
Others in Parliament are yet to come out against the whole project but now feel more free to speak out and act against the EU more generally – a trend most notable in the recent snub to the European Court of Human Rights over votes for prisoners.
Things are changing on the pro-EU side, too. It’s long been the case that those opposed to Brussels want a referendum, while those in favour of the EU either oppose one entirely or promise it and then dodge around their commitment later.
That situation, too, seems to be changing. Sunder Katwala of the Fabian Society recently came out in favour of an In/Out referendum, whilst reporting that the Shadow Europe Minister Wayne David has said it’s on the table for Labour’s policy review. David and Katwala have been joined by Keith Vaz, another of the EU’s prominent cheerleaders.
On the other side of the debate, James Forsyth has reported that Coalition Ministers (even Liberal Democrats) have started realising to their horror quite how much the EU binds their hands in Government. If you’d asked me a few months ago whether Oliver Letwin would ever be reported to be thinking that maybe Britain should leave the European project, I’d have laughed you out of town – nevertheless, Forsyth reports exactly that.
There is a third leg to the policy tripod, though. If MPs’ assumptions in the Commons change, and Ministers start to want the same thing, they are still unlikely to act unless public opinion will be on their side. They need to see that voters will not just not mind but actually reward them for taking a particular step.
This is already being tested by the Daily Express’ adoption of a Better Off Out position, which serves a similar role to Better Off Out MPs in breaking open the market of ideas on Fleet Street. For those that may scoff at the Express’s influence, don’t forget that they were early adopters in helping the TaxPayers’ Alliance break into the market and eventually establish a level of profile that distinctly irks the TPA’s critics. In the old story, the boy who pointed out that the Emperor was naked was just a kid, and yet he still managed to smash a farcical illusion held by the entire Royal Court.
The question is whether other papers or commentators will follow the Express’s lead. The first hint of that possibility appeared this weekend on the Twitter feed of the Express’s Patrick O’Flynn, where he said that on days where they go big on the EU “definitely put sales up” for the paper.
To change the politics of the EU debate, we need to sweep away a deeply entrenched system of perception and assumption. The cracks are showing in Parliament, the stubborn obstructionism of our opponents is starting to break down, Fleet Street’s unanimity is broken and – crucially – there are signs that there may be sales and votes in the issue.
Make no mistake about it, the plates are shifting.
Where are the anti-EU, pro-death penalty, Cannabis legalising MPs?
Posted on August 08, 2010On the back of a piece in the Independent by Sean O’Grady, Conservative Home’s Jonathan Isaby asks ”Should we care that the social background of the Government is unrepresentative of the country at large?”
My answer would, of course, be no – I don’t think you should be judged more or less suitable to govern the country due to your gender, skin colour or sexuality.
What I do think should worry us is the fact that Westminster is so devastatingly unrepresentative of the country at large politically.
We live in a nation that now has majority opposition to EU membership, oft-cited majority support for the death penalty for the most unpleasant offences, overwhelming enthusiasm for tougher sentencing, strong majority support for the legalisation of cannabis and extremely high levels of concern about the rate of immigration.
Where are those views represented in Westminster? Most of them are treated as fringe opinions that only a few MPs openly support.
It is irrelevant whether the political class have the right appearance, sexual interests or accents to represent the nation - but it is of the utmost importance that they represent the views of the people.
Amid all the hullabaloo about quotas and so-called “positive” discrimination being essential to produce a socially representative Parliament, one almost never hears those who make that case express any concern about the failure in political representation.
The fact is that those who argue most strongly for enforced social representativeness in Parliament are themselves almost totally unrepresentative of the nation politically. Would Sean O’Grady, I wonder, support quotas to ensure that the majority of MPs, like the majority of the public, were anti-EU or in favour of the execution of those who rape and kill children? I suspect not.
Wheeling and dealing
Posted on August 03, 2010Conservative Home’s poll of Conservative party members explores an interesting idea this week – should the Coalition partners step aside for each other in key seats at the next election?
The results are mixed – 55% of Conservatives think it “may be necessary” but are withholding final judgement, but 35% view the idea of a non-agression pact as “totally unacceptable”.
This is an extremely sticky topic. The Coalition partners don’t need to decide yet, or for quite some time, but they will eventually have to make their minds up about what to do. They will be desperate to avoid discussing it for as long as possible, because the eventual decision will crystallise what the Coalition is really all about – is it a temporary and uncomfortable marriage of convenience, a happy and lasting ideological meeting of minds or something between the two?
It also plumbs the existential questions which the Liberal Democrats have brought upon themselves by joining the Coalition in the first place. The polls already show them suffering not because people dislike what the Government is doing but because people are starting to wonder what the point in voting Lib Dem is. If they are seen to be too keen on a non-aggression pact it could be interpreted as a sign that they are scared to face the public, but there are great electoral risks if they try to fight every seat.
Consider the recent history of non-aggression pacts. The Better Off Out campaign, which I launched when I worked at The Freedom Association, brokered a deal that UKIP would not stand against true, out and out anti-EU Conservatives. In places like Shipley (Philip Davies) and Harwich and Clacton (Douglas Carswell) it worked fantastically, helping to land whopping majorities for anti-EU MPs in previously marginal constituencies.
The problems came in places where UKIP couldn’t control their local activists, who broke the deal their leaders had agreed to. Instead of trust and co-operation, you end up with an embarrassing mud-slinging match.
The rebellion in UKIP only really sprung up in the South West, but it’s a safe bet that such disobedience would be far more widespread if there was a deal sewn up between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. If 35% of Tories deeply oppose a deal, then a lot more Liberal Democrats would probably do so. Could Nick Clegg and David Cameron bring them all to heel?