Tag Archives: David Cameron

Time to say goodbye

So a week to go before the UK votes on whether or not to stay in the European Union (EU). In a previous post (“If Lucha Underground Wants to Grow it Must Get Rid of Intergender Matches”) you might remember I mentioned I was against the UK staying in the EU and said I would explain why in a future post. Well the time is now….

First of all I would say it is NOT because of anti immigration feelings. I was against the UK being in the EU long before immigration became an issue in the UK. The reason I am against the EU is simple and it came during a TV interview in the BBC’s 1992 General Election coverage.

On the day after this election – the first one I took an interest in though I was too young to vote – the BBC were interviewing a couple of Labour supporting trade unionists. Now by this time it was clear that the Conservative Party had won and the interviewer asked the trade unionists if they would use European law to try and thwart the Conservative Government’s policies. The trade unionists said yes. That annoyed me. I felt that the trade unionists were not accepting the vote of the British people and if Europe could stop the UK Government from implementing its policies what was the point in voting (I should stress that if it had been Conservative politicians trying to thwart a Labour Government via Europe I would have felt the same way).

Two examples of the EU meddling in UK affairs. In 1973 when we joined what is now the EU the UK Government imposed 17.5% Value Added Tax (VAT) on tampons since they were “luxury items”. In effect it was a tax on women since only women used tampons and they had no choice – it was an essential part of their lives. It seems a ridiculous tax but it was the 1970s and that was a very sexist decade in the UK. Quite rightly Prime Minister David Cameron thought that the “tampon tax” was a ridiculous sexist tax that should not exist in 2016 and it has been abolished. But Cameron could not abolish the tax without the backing of all the other 27 EU countries. He got their backing but should he have had to grovel to the EU anyway? No. It was none of the EU’s business and they should have had nothing to do with it. It should have been the UK Parliament that decided to get rid of the “tampon tax”.

Same with another abominable tax that is still with us because of the EU. In 1993 the Conservative Government imposed VAT on domestic fuel at 8% (a bid in 1994 to raise the rate to 17.5% was defeated).The Labour opposition was against VAT on fuel so when Tony Blair was swept to power in the 1997 landslide you would think it would be bye bye VAT on fuel. But no. Blair only cut the rate to 5%. He did not abolish it. Why not? He could not. Once the Conservative Government had imposed VAT on fuel it could only be reduced to 5% it could not be abolished… because of EU rules. Again it is ridiculous. It should be up to the UK Parliament to decide tax – not the EU. EU law needs to be secondary to UK law but while we are in the EU that cannot happen.

While my main reason is sovereignty another problem is that the EU is totally contemptuous of democracy. Countries including Denmark, France and Ireland have voted against EU treaties in the past. Did the EU accept the verdict of these countries voters? No. The countries were asked to vote again and voted in favour the second time they were asked. But what if they had voted against the treaties again? Would they have been forced to vote again and again until the EU got the result they wanted?

I also think we should never have joined the EU in the first place. The Prime Minister when we joined – Edward Heath – was an egomaniac and us joining the EU was his personal vanity project. When we joined in 1973 he celebrated with the “Fanfare For Europe” which was a waste of £350000 of taxpayers money spent on concerts, art exhibitions and even a football game at Wembley which attracted only 36,000 fans. Seventy five per cent of people thought the Fanfare should not take place (“Dominic Sandbrook, “State of Emergency, The Way We Were : Britain 1970-74, pages 171-72). It should be said that Heath’s Conservative Party had been pro Europe since the 1950s but French President Charles de Gaulle had vetoed Britain joining. I suspect with the British Empire breaking up Conservative politicians were deluding themselves that Britain could rule Europe which was tripe. I also suspect that if Heath had allowed us a referendum in say 1972 (as Ireland, Denmark and Norway had) we would have rejected membership as Norway did. Norway have still not joined the EU and seem to have survived! When Heath lost power in February 1974 the new Labour Government gave us a referendum (1975) which I still think only went in favour of Europe because the UK economy was a mess at the time with inflation reaching 26 per cent!  Since the UK people have never embraced the EU it would be in Europe’s best interest to lose at best an apathetic and at worst a hostile member.

Another reason to leave the EU is that I think eventually the EU will collapse. It is not only the UK that is hostile to the EU other members are becoming more hostile. Hardly surprising when you think what austerity forced on Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain to keep the fantasy currency the Euro alive has done to those countries with horrific poverty and youth unemployment the result. Plus history has shown that all artificial unions collapse – the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, our own British Empire and the Soviet Union being examples. The EU will collapse. It might take 20, 30, 40 years but it will. Smart people get off the ship before it sinks! We have a chance to do it!

Another problem with the EU is that it is just too big. It expanded into Eastern Europe when the ex members of the Soviet bloc joined it which means the countries in it have less and less in common and it became less effective. The EU should have stuck to the founding clique of six and added just Spain and Portugal when those two countries got democratised. Groups are more effective when they are small. A bizarre but apt analogy is with the New World Order (NWO) in wrestling which started with a small clique of members ballooned out of control by having far too many members and eventually collapsed in a heap. Just like in my opinion the EU will.

If we vote “Leave” on June 23rd we will take control of our country. The UK people will decide immigration policy. If we vote for a pro immigration Labour Party and it goes wrong it will be our fault not the immigrants. It will shut UKIP up as they will have no foreigners to blame for our problems.  Also there is a big wide world outside Europe that is becoming more important (China, Japan, India to name but three countries) and we can build relationships  with them outside the EU. Add to that the fact that the EU is like FIFA arrogant corrupt and unreformable and that we should never have joined in the first place and it becomes clear the best choice is to leave.

Finally I would stress that I am not stupid enough to say everything will be perfect if we leave but I think we must take control of – and responsibility for – our country. Being out of the EU might actually get rid of some of the racism/xenophobia in  the UK since we could not blame the EU for our problems like we do now. To quote the 1997 hit by Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman it is “Time to Say Goodbye” to the EU.  

This could be a crunch week for Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn has been leader of the Labour Party for less than three months but already the Party is in total chaos and this week could be the most critical so far. There is already talk of Labour MPs wanting rid of him and that could grow this week.

Today he finally succumbed to demands from his own Shadow Cabinet for Labour MPs to be given a free vote – that is to be allowed to make up their own minds rather than have to vote the way the leader tells them to – on the question of whether or not the UK should bomb the Islamic State (IS) in Syria. Prime Minister David Cameron has called a vote in the UK parliament for Wednesday. It was clear that Corbyn would not be able to make his MPs toe the line and that a big number would vote against their leader. To stop the party from falling apart he had to allow the free vote.

To my mind Corbyn is right to oppose air strikes – which will not defeat IS will only kill/injure innocent people and make the UK even more of a terror target – but he was wrong not to allow a free vote. This is an issue of individual conscience. MPs should be able to make up their minds on this serious issue without having to toe a party line (this should also apply to Conservative MPs). But at least David Cameron has taken a position and stuck to it. Not only has Corbyn taken the wrong position he did not even stick to it – making him both wrong and weak – a fatal combination.

But it sums up the whole problem of Corbyn’s leadership – the vast majority of Labour MPs NEVER wanted him as their leader. And their fears have been confirmed. The problem with Corbyn is not his domestic policy – there is a chance that his anti austerity policies could be accepted by the time of the 2020 UK General Election – but two other factors. His defence and foreign policies will not be accepted by the UK public who already perceive him as being utterly incapable of defending the country or responding to a crisis. It does not help that he put a nuclear disarmer Ken Livingstone in co charge of the review of Labour’s defence policy – over the head of defence spokesperson Maria Eagle – which looks to critics like Corbyn is prejudging the review and has alarmed the majority of his MPs.

But the main problem with Corbyn is not his left wing policies but the fact that the man is totally out of his depth and has been promoted way beyond his ability. In 32 years as an MP he was never more than an obscure backbencher. No one cared what he did. Whether he sung the National Anthem or bowed to the UK Queen didn’t matter but when you become leader of one of the UK’s two big parties – and thus a candidate for Prime Minister – everything you do is scrutinised and you get attacked to trivial things. Former Opposition leaders Michael Foot and William Hague got ridiculed for wearing a donkey jacket and a baseball cap respectively. Unfair? Yes. But that is the UK Press for you. Plus the fact that Corbyn rebelled against Labour leaders over 500 times and therefore can hardly force his authority on his rebellious MPs.

And he is not popular with the public. The latest polls give him a satisfaction rating of minus 12. Usually new leaders get a honeymoon period with the UK public but this has not happened here. And Corbyn’s first electoral test is on Thursday with a by-election in Oldham West and Royton which should be a walk in the park for Labour. Firstly it has a majority of 14,738 or 34.17 per cent. Secondly the late MP Michael Meacher was a Corbyn supporter which suggests that this constituency should accept Corbyn’s views. Yet Labour insiders reckon at best they will win this seat narrowly and at worst suffer a humiliating loss to UKIP. In a seat like this defeat would be a disaster and shivers would go down the spines of Labour MPs.

Perhaps a humiliating loss to UKIP might be the best thing that could happen to Labour as it would make them realise that Corbyn is toxic and has no chance in 2020. But not only would they need to overthrow Corbyn but they would have to bypass their own members. For unbelievably Labour members who elected Corbyn still think he is doing a good job. So they would need to nominate one candidate who could then be elected unopposed – as Conservative MPs did in 2003 after they overthrew Iain Duncan Smith. Dan Jarvis – who has only been an MP since 2011 and is thus untainted by the Blair/Brown Governments – would be a good candidate.

This matters because the UK needs an electable Opposition which we don’t have. It is important because if there is not a good Opposition the Government gets complacent. The Conservative Government has its problems just now. A threatened strike by junior doctors(now suspended), Chancellor George Osborne’s humiliating defeat and subsequent U-turn on tax credit cuts and a bullying story involving former Party Chairman Grant Shapps.

Plenty for a competent Opposition to get their teeth into. But we don’t have a competent Opposition. For the sake of the country – and even the Conservative Party – we need one. And soon.

A memo to the UK FAs : Please let these women go to Rio

So England’s women gave Norway “a hell of a beating”. Well they didn’t really. They were poor in the first half and relied on their keeper Karen Bardsley to bail them out. But once captain Steph Houghton scored an unexpected equaliser England took control and the winning goal by Lucy Bronze (a defender by the way) was magnificent and would not have been disowned by a Premier League player. So onwards and upwards and with the unimpressive hosts Canada in wait there is a 50-50 chance this story continues past Saturday.

But there is a cloud on the horizon. As I wrote in another post the top three European finishers in this event go to the Olympics in Rio next year. There are four European teams left in the event.  England France and Germany are already in the Quarter Finals and Holland play defending champions Japan tonight – and are expected to lose. If they do there will be three European teams left and the issue of Olympic qualification will be sorted out.

Except it won’t be. Because England can’t take part. FIFA have given the other three UK FAs – Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – a veto over the women’s participation in the Olympics. And guess what? They have vetoed it. This is absolutely shameful.

Now the reason the three FAs have given for this is that they are scared that if the England women took part in the Olympics as Team GB they would lose their independent voice in FIFA and lose their own football teams. That is the reason they give But it is false. FIFA have said there is no threat – and male and female GB teams took part in the 2012 Olympics and the four UK teams are still there. I don’t think there is any reason to fear that one.

They are not scared of losing their separate national teams. What they are scared of is losing their privileges. The five star hotels. The luxury flights. The right to travel around the world. The right to have a veto over the laws of football (the four UK FAs have four votes out of eight on the International Football Association Board (IFAB) which controls the laws of football). The right of the UK to provide one of FIFA’s vice Presidents. That is what they are scared of.

The funny thing is that these three FAs claim to support women’s football. Tripe. Utter tripe. If these idiots cared about women’s football they will recognise that the Olympics are vital to women’s football. The last Olympics (with its 73,000 gate for GB V Brazil and its 80,000 gate for the Final) proved this. Any FA that cared about women’s football should snatch at the chance that last night’s victory might have given England.

The UK Government should intervene. If the English FA won’t “go it alone” and ignore the other three then all male professional football in England should be shut down from August 1st. It is easy enough done. All male football grounds in England need a licence to be able to stage matches. it would be easy to take the licences away. Faced with a catastrophic loss of income and pressure from the big English clubs  the FA would buckle – and very quickly.

If Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland don’t agree Swansea should be thrown out of the English Premier League. Wales should not be allowed to be British when it suits them and Welsh when it does not. I admire Swansea but they have to be sacrificed for the greater good. The Welsh have their own League. If they don’t want to have a GB women’s team they should not be taking part in the Premier League.

Also Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland should be pulled out of the men’s Euro 2016. Easy enough done. All you need to do is take the passports of the players away so they can’t go abroad. All three have a chance of being at Euro 2016. I reckon even the threat of them not being able to take part will make the three FAs back down.

These plans are draconian – but would not be needed. I suspect even the threat would force “the three dinosaurs” to back down. The reason they give for not letting the women go to the Olympics is fear of the loss of privileges. If you threaten them with just that they will back down.

Last month UK Prime Minister David Cameron appointed Tracey Crouch – a former player now a coach – as Sports Minister. She clearly cares about women’s football. Now is her chance to put her money where her mouth is. She should say that England’s women MUST go to the Olympics next year. She should persuade. She should threaten. She should bang heads together. She should NOT take no for an answer. For the good of women’s football in the UK do it Tracey. These women (assuming Holland don’t upset the applecart and beat Japan) have EARNED the right to take part in the Olympics. The outdated, sexist, parochial and pathetic Scottish Welsh and Northern Irish FAs should NOT be allowed to take that away from them. if they do, their men should have Euro 2016 taken away from them. See how they like something that means a lot to them being taken away …

Some thoughts on the 2015 election

Well no one expected that result did they? Every poll in the UK General Election predicted a hung parliament. As it turned out we got a single party majority – albeit a small one of 11 for the Conservative Party – even more astonishing as it is only the second time the party of the incumbent Prime Minister has increased its number of seats after a full term in office since 1959 (also 1983). So what happens next? Here are some issues and questions that came out of the election.

1. Will the Conservatives behave themselves? The last two Governments with small majorities (1974-79 and 1992-97) ran into problems with rebellions from their own MPs and lost their majorities to by election defeats and defections. The 1992-97 Major government (the last majority Conservative government) was a shambles with the Tory right holding Major to ransom. Will they have learnt their lesson? The funny thing is Cameron’s majority is now smaller (10) than the one the previous coalition had (76). Will it last the full five years?

2. Labour are in a horrid dilemma. Iain MacWhirter in his book “Road to Referendum” said that “Scotland thinks likes Denmark and England thinks like the USA”. Labour lost in England because they were perceived as being too left wing whereas in Scotland they lost because they weren’t left wing enough. Whoever succeeds Ed Miliband has almost an impossible circle to square.

3. The union is in danger again. How on earth can you force Denmark (Scotland) to accept the USA (England’s) policies? You can’t. You also can’t force England to accept Scotland’s policies. I suspect it was the SNP threatening to force a Labour government on a Conservative voting England that drove enough English voters into the arms of the Conservatives to give them a majority. The only solution is either Boris Johnson’s idea of federalism or give the Scottish Parliament a veto on Conservative laws. If Cameron forces austerity on Scotland there will be a second independence referendum – and very soon.

4. Coalitions have no future in the UK. The decimation of the Liberal Democrats – down to 8 MPs compared to 57 – proves that the British people do not want coalitions. Coalitions mean broken promises and the UK people hate politicians who break their promises  but if you are in a coalition you have to break your promises. Disraeli said that “England does not love coalitions”  and what happened to the Lib Dems proves that. A consequence of the Lib Dem massacre is that no small party in the future will join a coalition because they now know they will get decimated.

5. UKIP could fade away. Nigel Farage failed to win Thanet South and promptly resigned*. The problem for UKIP is they are going to get what they want – an in/out referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU). If the UK votes to pull out of the EU UKIP have got what they wanted and I suspect the party will split as that is the only issue UKIP members have in common. If the UK votes to stay in the EU they might get the membership boost the SNP got after the Scottish referendum but I doubt it. I wouldn’t be surprisesd if UKIP don’t exist in 2020 with their one MP Douglas Carswell – a maverick – standing in (and probably winning) Clacton as an independent.

6. But the Green Party won’t. The Green Party trebled their vote despite having an unimpressive leader in Natalie Bennett. if she has the sense to resign and make way for their one MP Caroline Lucas – whose Brighton Pavilion seat is now safe with a majority of over 7,000 – they could well get the anti establishment anti Tory vote. With the Lib Dems in meltdown and UKIP without the charismatic Farage the opportunity for the Greens is great as their environmental message could appeal to both fed up Conservative and Labour voters (for example current Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith used to be editor of the Ecologist magazine). I wouldn’t be surprised if during this parliament the greens go up in the polls and that Lucas might gain a colleague in parliament as they could win safe Conservative seats in by elections (as the Lib Dems used to do)

One thing is certain. The next five years will be crucial for the UK. The future of the UK in Europe – plus the future of the UK itself – could very well be decided during this period. It could be the most crucial Parliament the UK has seen since the October 1974-79 one – the last parliament  both with a European referendum and a single party majority smaller than this one (3). By 2020 the UK could out of the EU. It might even cease to exist. Once the euphoria of his win has died down David Cameron has a series of huge tasks.

*Events have overtook me. Nigel Farage is still leader of UKIP after the party turned down his resignation.

So what on earth will happen on May 7th?

As anyone who reads me will know I quite like making predictions. Some good (the 2014 World Series and the cricket World Cup for example) and some bad (too many to mention). But today I’m attempting my hardest task. To call Thursday’s UK General Election which is the most unpredictable since 1974.

I wasn’t even sure how to do it. I thought of predicting all 650 seats in the UK but most of them are safe (ie one party is a certainty to win) so it would have been boring to read – and boring to write. I thought of just predicting the marginal (the UK equivalent of “swing states” in the US) seats. Sky News has even produced a list of marginals for its “In The Margins” series but not all the 150 seats in that list are marginal. For some reason best known to Sky the list includes safe seats like Aylesbury (Conservative majority 12,648) but not Keighley (Conservative majority 2,940) a seat that has changed sides seven times since 1959. So Sky’s list is flawed.

What I decided to do is do a prediction range for each party – predicting the minimum and maximum number of seats I think each party will win. The range is actually very narrow. Since the war the conservatives have never fallen below 165 and Labour have never fallen below 209. But before I make the predictions for those who don’t know UK politics (or don’t remember) the 2010 election produced the following result:

Conservative 306 seats, Labour 258, Liberal Democrats 57, Scottish National Party (SNP) 6, Plaid Cyrmu 3, Green Party 1, Speaker 1 and Northern Ireland 18* (the UK parties don’t stand there) I should also say a party needs 326 seats** for a majority.

So here is the prediction and I’ll start with the two main parties:

Conservative: 275-295 (that means in my opinion they won’t win less than 275 or more than 295)

Labour: 280-300

As you can see that means it is not certain who will be the biggest party but I would give the edge to Labour because the UK constituency boundaries favour Labour as their seats are in cities thus smaller than the Conservatives and need less votes to win them. It is possible (like February 1974) that Labour will get more seats than the Conservatives but less votes. All the polls suggest a swing to Labour of 2-4 per cent which means Labour should gain seats from the Conservatives as most Con-Lab seats go with the swing. Only 32 Con-Lab seats went against the swing in 2010. I do think the Conservatives might gain a couple from Labour against the swing – Hampstead and Kilburn (majority 42) and Southampton Itchen (majority 192) are two possibilities. But it is clear Labour will make gains from the Conservatives.

But this election isn’t as simple as that. The result will be decided by what happens to the small parties – the Lib Dems , SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cyrmu  and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). And they are very hard to predict. But I’ll try.

Lib Dems: 20-30. It shows how ghastly the Lib Dem poll ratings are (down from 23% in 2010 to 10% if they are lucky) that some people will be amazed that I think they won’t fall below 20 and might get 30. But the Lib Dems are hard to “dig out” of a seat – especially if they have a sitting MP. They will struggle in three scenarios. Where a sitting MP is retiring (ie Berwick upon Tweed) where there is a large student population – like party leader Nick Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam seat – and in Scotland which has not forgiven them  for joining with the Conservatives in coalition after 2010. So I reckon they will hold seats they should lose like Wells (majority 800) which is not a university seat and where the MP was first elected in 2010 but lose safer seats like Bristol West (majority 11,366) which has the university in it. It will be bad for the Lib Dems – but not as bad as people fear.

SNP: 20-30: This goes against the polls that think the SNP could win 50 seats or even all 59 in Scotland but I doubt that. There are signs of a backlash against the SNP with unionists thinking of voting for the party best placed to beat them in different seats. Plus the fact that in most Scottish seats the SNP are a  long way behind (for example the closest Labour-SNP seat is Ochil and Perthshire South (majority 5,197) and it would not take much of a “switch back” to save quite a lot of seats) The SNP will make gains. But I’ll be surprised if they get more than 30 seats.

UKIP: 1-5. I wrote about UKIP back in October  and nothing has happened to make me change my opinion they will get votes but not many seats. Douglas Carswell their first MP will hold Clacton but that might be all they get. Their other MP Mark Reckless could lose his Rochester seat back to the Conservatives and party leader Nigel Farage is a toss up to win Thanet South. Polls say they could win Thurrock, Castle Point (their best bet) Cambourne and Redruth, Great Grimsby and maybe even Rotherham but I’ll be surprised if they win more than 3 and they won’t win more than 5.

Plaid Cymru 2-4. Could gain Ynys Mon (Anglesey in English –  majority 2,461 ) from Labour or lose Arfon (majority 1,455) to them but I reckon they will hold their three seats and gain none.

Green Party: 1-2. Fairly easy to predict. Former leader Caroline Lucas has been a good MP and should hold Brighton Pavillion. They are targeting two Lib Dem seats – Norwich South and Bristol West. They might gain the Norwich  seat which needs a 7.3% swing to go but won’t gain the Bristol one.

Respect: 1-2. Didn’t win a seat in 2010 but gained Bradford West – with George Galloway the MP – in a 2012 by election. Galloway should hold it and they have a slim chance of gaining Birmingham Hall Green (majority 3,799) from Labour.

As you can see my prediction (as almost everybody’s is) is for another hung parliament. But this time I don’t think we will get a coalition but a minority government (that is where one party rules but other party/parties agree not to bring the government down). And since most MPs outside of the big three are more pro Labour (as I wrote before) it is possible that Labour leader Ed Miliband could form a government even if Prime Minister David Cameron has the biggest single party. In that scenario I reckon (like 1974) there will be another election before this year is out (October?) as Labour try to become at least the biggest party and gain legitimacy. In that situation I think the SNP, Greens and UKIP would all lose votes and Labour might even get  a majority.

One thing is certain. it will be a tense nervous night and it could very well be a case as in 2010 of “A  long Night with no winner” (as the “British General Election of 2010” put it)

*Four seats changed hands in by elections between 2010 and 2015 so the current total is Conservative 303 seats, Labour 258, Lib Dem 57, SNP  6, Plaid Cyrmu 3, UKIP 2, Green Party 1,Respect 1, Speaker 1 and Northern Ireland 18
**But as Sinn Fein’s 5 MPs don’t turn up in practice the number of seats needed for a majority is 323.

Miliband need offer Sturgeon nothing

The SNP bandwagon shows no sign of slowing down. In fact it seems to be picking up momentum. Two new Scottish polls have the SNP at over 50 per cent of the Scottish electorate (one had them leading Labour by 50-26 the other by 54-22) . It looks like the SNP could win 54 out of 59 seats in Scotland (with Labour  down to 3, the Lib Dems 1 and the Conservatives 0). For comparison the 2010 seats in Scotland were Labour 41, Lib Dem 11 SNP 6 and Conservative 1. This would put a big prize the SNP’s way. With another hung parliament – where no one party has a majority – looking like a dead cert – and the Lib Dems reckoned to fall from 57 seats to less than 30 and perhaps nearer 20 – it looks like the SNP and their allies the Welsh Nationalists Plaid Cyrmu*  could decide who is the Prime Minister of the UK after May 7th.. While that is scary for English voters the SNP are not in as strong a position as at first glance and are in a position to demand very little.

This is because party leader Nicola Sturgeon has made it quite clear that she would only support Labour leader Ed Miliband as Prime Minister and under no circumstances the Conservatives even if current PM David Cameron offered her a another referendum on Scottish independence – which he wouldn’t anyway. History shows that unless a minor party is prepared to back either party they don’t get much out of the big party in deal negotiations

The first example is from the 1970s. As I mentioned before the Labour party had won the October 1974 election with a majority of 3 seats. By 1977 by election defeats and defections had wiped out that tiny majority and Labour were in a minority. In March 1977 Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher tabled a no confidence motion in the government. If she won it meant a General Election would be held – and as Thatcher was 13 per cent ahead in the polls it would have been a disaster for Labour. The 11 SNP MPs would not back Labour nor the 10 Ulster Unionists. Labour looked doomed.

But luckily for Labour another party was in trouble. The previous summer Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe had resigned over allegations of a homosexual affair** and the party had not recovered. Prime Minister James Callaghan’s policy advisor Bernard Donoughue called the 13 Liberal MPs “hysterical” and polls suggested that an election would mean only 5 held their seats (Dominic Sandbrook “Seasons in the Sun : The Battle for Britain 1974-79” page 647). So as neither Labour or the Liberals wanted an election in 1977 the two parties got talking and agreed the “Lib-Lab Pact” where the Liberals would agree to support Callaghan’s government thus thwarting Thatcher’s no confidence motion as the 13 Liberal MPs gave Callaghan a majority.

And what did the Liberals gain in return? Not much. Labour “accepted a limited number of Liberal party proposals” and…that is it. They didn’t even get proportional representation (PR) for the 1979 European Parliament elections. Labour offered them a “free vote”  on the issue (where MPs are allowed to make their own minds up rather than have to do what the party tells them to). But as most Labour MPs in the 1970s were against PR  anyway it made no difference and PR was defeated.

The reason the Liberals couldn’t demand more is that they could only support Labour. The alternative was a General Election  that they did not want. So they had little bargaining power over Labour in negotiations. The similarity with the SNP today is striking.

In contrast in 2010 when the Lib Dems held the balance of power after that election  they made it quite clear that they were prepared to deal with Labour or the Conservatives. So when Labour offered them a referendum on electoral reform the Conservatives had to follow suit otherwise the Lib Dems could have formed a coalition with Labour instead. They formed a coalition with the Conservatives and in 2011 the referendum on electoral reform was lost. But had before the election they said they were only prepared to work with one party the referendum would not have happened in the first place.

Another analogy is from the Simpsons of all things. In the episode “Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk” (8F09) Mr Burns sells the nuclear power plant to a couple of Germans but then changes his mind and wants to buy it back. He goes on his knees and says “Please sell me my plant back. I’ll pay anything”. But the Germans – who want to sell the plant – make the mistake of telling Burns they are desperate to sell. Burns then gets off his knees and says “Desperate eh? Advantage: Burns” and proceeds to make them an offer of half what they paid for it.The Germans are not happy but as they are desperate to sell and that is his final offer – and no one else has bid for the plant – they have no choice to accept (a consequence of this is that Homer – who the Germans fired – got his job back).

So on May 8th if the SNP hold the balance Ed Miliband has to act like Mr Burns. Yes he is desperate to get to 10 Downing Street –  but the SNP are desperate to get David Cameron out so it is “advantage Miliband.” He need offer the SNP nothing since they will want neither Cameron to stay PM or a second election which they would get the odium for causing and could put their newly elected MPs at risk. So Miliband needs to do nothing . Just sit back and wait for the SNP to take him to Downing Street. For they have no other choice.

*Plaid Cyrmu had 3 MPs in the last Parliament. Polls suggest they will have 3 MPs again after this election.

**Homosexuality was far less tolerated in 1970s Britain than it is now.

 

If Clegg goes Cameron could go with him

One interesting feature of UK General Elections is that even the most famous politicians in the UK have to get re elected in their own constituencies. David Cameron for example is not the Prime Minister – he is the humble Conservative candidate for Witney. Likewise the man who wants to replace him as Prime Minister – Labour leader Ed Miliband – is just the Labour candidate for Doncaster North. And if either lose their seat they cannot be Prime Minister as you have to be an MP to be Prime Minister. Now I should say that Witney and Doncaster North are safe seats for their parties and the chances of either man losing are nil.

However famous names can and do lose at elections. One example was Patrick Gordon Walker who lost Smethwick (see previous post) in the 1964 election which eventually cost him the job of Foreign Secretary. But the most famous slaughter of big names came in Labour’s 1997 landslide where 7 out of 22 MPs who were in the Conservative Cabinet lost their seats including the most infamous defeat in UK politics.

In 1997 Michael Portillo was the most hated politician in the country – called a “bastard” by his own party’s Prime Minister John Major. And Labour hated him too!   Still he was defending a majority of over 15,000 in Enfield Southgate so he was expected to win – and then become leader of his party after their election defeat. But  Labour took Southgate on a huge swing of 17.4 % (the UK swing to Labour in 1997 was 10 %). It was such a memorable event it became known as the “Portillo Moment*” and briefly coined a UK catchphrase “Were you up for Portillo**?” But that result only affected the leadership of the Conservative Party – not the result of the election. There is just the possibility of a “Portillo Moment” in this year’s election – and this could decide who goes to Number 10 Downing Street on May 8th.

The man in question is the leader of the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems for short) and the UK’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Like Portillo he is defending a majority of over 15,000 in his seat – Sheffield Hallam. Like Portillo he should be safe. But like Portillo he is hated in the UK. This is partly because a lot of Lib Dems hate the Conservatives and didn’t want the party to go into coalition with them. But his real mistake was to say during the 2010 campaign that he would oppose an increase in tuition fees for students in England and Wales – and then he voted for an increase once he was in government. As the Lib Dems had campaigned for the student vote in 2010 on the issue of not raising them they felt betrayed. I don’t think many students will vote for the party this time. And unfortunately for Clegg his constituency includes Sheffield Hallam university! A poll earlier this year in the seat suggested he was behind Labour and just ahead of the Conservatives. He might even finish third.

But this matters more than just wither or not Clegg holds the seat. If Clegg does lose the seat it could cost his boss David Cameron his job of Prime Minister. This is because it looks like no one party will get a majority and who becomes Prime Minister will depend on who can do deals with smaller parties. Most people think that the current  coalition was built on the chemistry between Clegg and Cameron. As I wrote above the majority of the Lib Dems are hostile to the Conservatives and a new leader – which the party would need if Clegg loses – is likely to want to either deal with Labour or go back into opposition.

This could cause real trouble for David Cameron. if the Lib Dems won’t deal with him who will? A look at the other parties who had MPs in the last Parliament is not encouraging for him.

Scottish National Party (SNP) – had 6 MPs in the last parliament. Their constitution bans deals with the Conservatives.

Plaid Cyrmu – 3 MPs – won’t back a Conservative government that the people of Wales reject. The Conservatives have never won a general election in Wales

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) – 2 MPs –  might go with the Conservatives but would take Cameron to the right where he does not want to go. Also unlikely to win many seats and might lose the two they have.

Green Party – 1 MP – Caroline Lucas who said in 2010 she would not vote for a Conservative government. One suspects if the party wins more seats those MPs would agree with their former leader.

Respect – 1 MP – George Galloway who got kicked out of Labour for opposing the Iraq war. There is no way he would back the Conservatives.

Then there are the Northern Ireland parties:

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) – 8 MPs – Cameron’s best hope. But they would want rid of the bedroom tax and more spending for Northern Ireland which Cameron would oppose.

Sinn Fein  – 5 MPs – who don’t take their seats so can be discounted. Wouldn’t deal with the Conservatives anyway.

Social Democratic and Labour Party – 3MPs – A sister party of Labour. Enough said

Alliance Party – 1 MP – A sister party of the Lib Dems but the MP – Naomi Long – did not back the coalition or take the Lib Dem whip.

It is clear form the list above that the parties outside the “big three” are more likely to back Labour than the Conservatives. That means Cameron’s only hope of remaining Prime Minister is to do a “Coalition version 2” with the Lib Dems. But if Clegg is defeated the chances of that happening are at best greatly reduced and at worse gone. With this in mind of the 650 seats in this election Sheffield Hallam is the most important. It could on its own decide David Cameron’s fate. It could very well be that if Nick Clegg loses his seat that David Cameron’s chance of remaining at 10  Downing Street go with him.

* There is even a UK band called The Portillo Moment.

**This means were you awake/did you see Portillo’s defeat live on TV? The result was declared at 3.01am and the result of the election was already known so a lot of viewers would have gone to bed. If you are interested I was up for Portillo.

Don’t let Murphy drag football back into the 1970s

Since I wrote about the plight of the Scottish Labour Party back in November things have not improved despite the election of Jim Murphy as leader. The last Scottish poll I saw put them at 28 per cent, 17 points behind the SNP who are on 45. That would mean they would fall from 41 seats to 12 while the SNP would go from 6 seats to 47. A poll this month by ex Conservative donor and polling guru Lord Ashcroft was even worse. It suggested that even the ultra safe Labour seat of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (majority 20,714 or 49.8 per cent making it the eighth safest Labour seat in the entire UK) would fall to a rampant SNP. Scottish Labour are still in deep trouble.
So what is Jim Murphy’s big plan to win back Labour voters? He wants to allow football fans to drink alcohol at games again. Quite apart from the fact that this issue is devolved to the Scottish Parliament and has nothing to do with the UK election the plan is a non starter as it would drag football in Scotland back to the 1970s. For those that don’t know alcohol was banned from Scottish football grounds after a hideous riot after the Rangers v Celtic Cup Final of 1980 where police on horseback had to disperse gangs of morons. The ban – imposed significantly by a woman Margaret Thatcher – had the effect of making football in Scotland civilised. Thirty five years on football wants it lifted but they are wrong totally wrong – and Murphy far from encouraging them to chase votes should be backing the law.
Football wants the ban lifted because fans want a drink, clubs want to make money and they argue that sports like rugby have fans drinking at games so why shouldn’t football? The last point is easy to deal with. There is no history of violence or racist and sexist abuse at rugby. There is at football. The chants at football matches are offensive enough when fans are sober. Imagine how bad they would be if they were drunk. Scottish Football Association head of Communications Darryl Broadfoot said in Saturday’s Daily Record that “We have allowed ourselves to be stigmatised – wrongly – as the pariahs of Scottish social culture”. But football fans are the pariahs of social culture because some of them can’t behave. Even my local junior team Kilbirnie Ladeside were at one time (2011) banned from hosting or visiting bitter rivals Beith because of hideous riots that needed more than 30 police officers to control – and this is for games watched by a few hundred people!
And if football is for lifting the ban society is not. The police are against it – after all football fans are hard enough for the police to deal with sober never mind with a drink in them. Women’s groups are against for fear that fans returning from games drunk would be more likely to beat up their partners (domestic violence in the UK is always worse after big football matches). And accident and emergency (A and E) departments at hospitals are against for fear that drunk fans would get involved in fights go to A and E and increase the workload on an already over worked department of the Health Service. Why should arrogant football’s demands be allowed to affect other areas of society? This is like the football v society debate that the Ched Evans affair caused when shamefully the headliner in January 9th’s Daily Telegraph said “FOOTBALL BACKS EVANS” (a convicted rapist by the way). But society – led by brave Jean Hatchet – did not and public opinion won. Football has NO right to impose its views on society. Why can’t Murphy get that? There are other examples of society imposing its views on groups. I’m sure drivers would like to travel at whatever speed they like and be free to drink or drive. But society – since the 1967 Road Safety Act passed by significantly a woman Barbara Castle – imposed speed limits and limited the amount of alcohol you were allowed to drink before you drove. An example of society’s desire for road safety trumping the selfish desire of motorists to do whatever they wanted. Castle got dog’s abuse from motorists – I imagine that if Twitter had existed in 1967 she would have got the same death/rape threats Hatchet has got for standing up to football – but the law saved lives. And that is important.
Another disappointing thing about Murphy wanting the ban lifted is that it goes against his views on football. He is supportive of women in football and in 2012 even asked “Why is there not a female manager of a male professional football team”?. He doesn’t seem to realise that the lifting of the ban on alcohol would make the grounds less safe and deter women (and children) from attending games. He also doesn’t realise that for some of the people wanting the ban lifted that might be the reason they want it lifted – to deter women from attending. I know the West of Scotland rather too well and I suspect there are Scottish equivalents of Dougie Brimson – who wrote in his book “The Geezer’s Guide to Football* (page 57) “if I had my way women wouldn’t even be allowed inside grounds” (He also wrote that women can’t play football or kick a ball with any degree of accuracy over a distance of 40 inches. Oh dear. This guy has clearly not seen goals by Carli Lloyd, Claire Lavogez, Dzsenifer Marozan , Eugenie Le Sommer, Stephanie Roche and Toni Duggan – among others – that make him look like the prat he is.)
The other thing that puzzles me about Murphy is why is he choosing to make an issue of this? There are far more important things than this he could be talking about. Like the fact that our health service is creaking at the seams. Like the fact that food bank use in the UK has rocketed since David Cameron became Prime Minister. Like the fact that the poor have been clobbered by the bedroom tax. Like the fact that big companies evade tax – and don’t pay the living wage. Like the fact that his UK party leader Ed Miliband is a gutless coward who is scared of the voters and won’t give us a referendum on EU membership. What has Murphy to say on those important issues? He’d better tell us. For unless he does his party is facing wipe out in May – and proposing to drag football back into the 1970s is NOT the way to save his party.
*Anyone who knows my views on football might wonder how I have this book – football’s answer to the “lads mags” that pollute newsagents. The answer is poof that males can be victims of gender stereotyping too. A well meaning relative got me it one Christmas on the basis that as I am a male who likes football I would agree with Brimson’s sexist drivel. Which I don’t.

Thatcher and the non-sexist myth

Not everybody in the UK agreed with Rashida Manjoo’s view (see previous post) that the UK was the “most in your face sexist country”. The right wing press used the fact that we had a female Prime Minister back in 1979 – long before among others Germany (2004) and Australia (2010) – and of course the US has never had a female President – as proof that the UK is not sexist. But the fact is that Margaret Thatcher became leader of her party despite sexism not because there wasn’t any. In fact she used sexism to her advantage! She got the job due to a conjunction of circumstances and a mixture of luck bravery and people underestimating her. As tomorrow is the 40th anniversary of her becoming her party’s leader I thought I’d explain the story of how she became leader of her party 40 years ago.
The fact she became leader of the Conservative Party in 1975 was quite remarkable. After all the Conservative Party has a poor record in electing woman MPs. In 1975 she was one out of just 7 (out of 276) Conservative MPs who were women. There have been 18 post war elections in the UK. In only two of them – 1970 and 1983* has the party elected more women MPs than Labour. Add to that the fact that Thatcher herself – in a BBC interview in 1973 – said “there will never be a female Prime Minister in my lifetime”. Yet she became leader of her party only two years later. So what happened in between?
The first event that led to her becoming leader was in February 1974 when Conservative leader and UK Prime Minister Edward Heath called a General Election he did not need to. He had a secure majority and his mandate lasted until June 1975. But he wanted a new mandate to deal with a miners’ strike. His election slogan was “Who Governs Britain?” The voters decided “Not you mate!”. Although the election produced a hung parliament Labour had 301 seats to Heath’s 296. Heath tried (and failed) to form a Coalition with the Liberals but eventually resigned. He had thrown away power and went on to lose a second election the following October. People thought a leader that had lost two elections in a year should go.
It is interesting to note that in October 1974 Thatcher was still a 50-1 no hoper with the bookmakers to be leader and only Robert McKenzie of the BBC seemed to think she was a runner. During the BBC’s October 1974 results programme he said “Returned (to Parliament) a few minutes ago Mrs Thatcher could be one of the contenders”. William Whitelaw – a Heath loyalist – was considered the favourite.
But Heath wouldn’t resign. He would have to be forced out. This meant that as Whitelaw was still loyal someone would need to be found to challenge him. It could have been controversial maverick Enoch Powell – the Nigel Farage of his day – but back in February he had resigned his seat said he was voting LABOUR and told the electorate to do likewise. That of course meant he could hardly be the Conservative Party leader. So who would challenge Heath?
And this is where Thatcher got lucky. She had no intention of running for leader. As the British General Election of 1979 (page 62) put it “She was a supporter of the claims of Edward du Cann and Sir Keith Joseph. It was only after these two declined to be considered that she decided to oppose Mr Heath”. And of course no one gave her a chance. An example of the sexism she faced was from the Daily Mirror (February 3 1975) which said “with Margaret Thatcher it is sometimes a bit hard to tell whether she wants to be Prime Minister or housewife of the year”. In fact her campaign manager Aiery Neave even used sexism to her advantage. As she was the only serious candidate** to oppose Heath Neave was able to say to Conservative MPs “the only way to get a serious candidate like Whitelaw was to vote for “the filly” on the first ballot” (Dominic Sandbrook , “Seasons in the Sun: The Battle for Britain 1974-79”, page 246). Neave’s plan was not for Thatcher to win but to stop Heath getting a majority on the first ballot. One Conservative MP said “there were never 139 votes (the figure needed for a majority) for Margaret”
But on February 4 1975 Thatcher caused a sensation. She beat Heath by 130-119. Heath, humiliated, promptly resigned. But as she hadn’t got 139 votes other candidates could now enter the race. And they did. FOUR men announced their candidacy. Not just Whitelaw but Sir Geoffrey Howe, James Prior and John Peyton. The press weren’t fooled. It looked like a bunch of sexists were desperately trying to stop her winning. The Glasgow Herald headline on February 6th 1975 summed it up. “Male stampede to stop Mrs Thatcher”. The Daily Telegraph – on the same day – said “A whole herd of faint hearts had left it to a courageous and able woman to topple a formidable leader and then ganged up to deny her her just reward”. But it turned out to be another stroke of luck. Conservative MPs saw through the plan, momentum swung towards her and on February 11 1975 she won easily trouncing Whitelaw by 146-79 (no one else got more than 19). Britain against all the odds had a female leader of a major party. The governing Labour Party were happy though. Ministers said in private “That’s it We’re home and dry… no need to worry about the next election. It’s a forgone conclusion”(Sandbrook page 252). As it turned out they were wrong and Thatcher went on to win three elections in a row. But the fact was although she was brave to oppose Heath she was lucky to win. MPs were voting not for her but to get Heath out. And just look at this list of “Ifs” that would have changed history:
If Heath hadn’t called the February 1974 election.
If he had won it.
If Powell hadn’t told everyone to vote Labour.
If Heath had resigned after October allowing loyalists like Whitelaw to stand.
Or ifJoseph or du Cann had stood.
If any of those events had happened Thatcher would never had stood for the leadership never mind won it.
But did Thatcher’s win mean the UK is not sexist now? Hardly. First of all as Prime Minister Thatcher was no friend of women. During her 15 years as leader the number of Conservative female MPs only rose from 7 to 17 and for most of her time as PM she was the only woman in her Cabinet. That is why despite smashing the glass ceiling for women most feminists hate her as she did nothing to help other women. And since she resigned as PM in 1990 no other woman been elected leader of one of the UK’s three main parties***. In fact only three women since Thatcher have even stood for leadership of their parties – Diane Abbott, Jackie Ballard and Margaret Beckett. And only 22.8 per cent of MPs are women even today.
However there is hope. It is highly likely that whichever one of David Cameron or Ed Miliband loses this year’s election will also lose his job. And both the Conservatives with Home Secretary Theresa May and Labour with her shadow Yvette Cooper have genuine female contenders for leadership. In fact May has been mentioned as a future leader far more than Thatcher ever was. I reckon the odds are 50-50 that 2015 will be the year the UK gains its first female leader of one of our big parties since Thatcher back in 1975.
Yes Thatcher’s achievement in becoming Conservative leader and then Prime Minister was a great one. But anybody who thinks because of that the UK is not a sexist country needs to stop burying their heads in the sand like ostriches. Sexism is a problem in the UK. And anyone who says it is not are lying.
* And in 1983 the percentage of Conservative MPs who were female (13 out of 397 or 3.3 per cent) was lower than Labour’s (10 out of 209 or 4.8 per cent)
** There was one other candidate in the first ballot – Hugh Fraser the MP for Stafford and Stone. He was such a nonentity my politics teacher had never heard of him and he was not a serious candidate. He got 16 votes.
*** The Labour Party have had two female Deputy Leaders. Margaret Beckett and the current holder of the job Harriet Harman. Both were acting Leaders when the Party was between leaders – Beckett in 1994 and Harman in 2010.

Should there be UK Election TV debates?

Today is a big milestone in the UK political calendar. There are 100 days of campaigning left before the country goes to the polls on May 7th in what is looking like the most unpredictable UK election since 1974. There are many questions to be answered including Will there be leader’s debates on TV? And if so who’ll take part?
Unlike in the US, leaders debates did not occur in the UK until the last election in 2010 where there were three debates – on ITV, Sky News and the BBC – between then Prime Minister Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. The debates attracted TV audiences of 9.3 million (ITV), 4.1 million (Sky News) and 8.1 million (BBC) (Dennis Kavanagh and Philip Cowley, the British General Election of 2010, page 266) and according to the same book (page 267) “The prevailing view among broadcasters and politicians…was that the debates had been a success and that they had come to stay”. So why with 100 days of the campaign left are the debates not a certainty to happen again? And would that be a good or a bad thing?
The event that has caused the problem has been the rise of a fourth party in UK politics, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). Since 2013 there have been seven by-elections in Great Britain. UKIP has won two, come second by less then 5% in two, and second in the other three. They also won last years European Parliament elections in the UK. The broadcasters (the three that covered the 2010 debates plus Channel 4) responded to the rise of UKIP by proposing a “4-3-2” plan. One debate would have four participants – the 2010 trio plus UKIP leader Nigel Farage – one would have the same participants as 2010 and the third would be a US style two headed debate between Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour Party leader Ed Miliband.
And then the problems started. The Green Party (who have one MP – who unlike UKIP’s two MPs* – won her seat at the 2010 Election as a Green) felt that if UKIP were in a debate, their leader Natalie Bennett should be too. And enter in a bizarre alliance, David Cameron, who said he would not take part in the debates unless the Greens were there. (I should explain that the reason we didn’t have debates in the UK pre 2010 is that the Prime Minister of the day always turned them down. We only got debates in 2010 because Gordon Brown was so far behind in the polls he felt he had nothing to lose.) So it looked like the debates were off.
So the broadcasters got their thinking caps on – and came up with a “7-7-2” plan. Two of the debates would include SEVEN parties – the four already in plus the Greens, the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru – the latter two also wanting in despite the fact they are regional not national parties – while the third would be a Cameron v Miliband head to head. However, this plan is causing trouble too. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg wants to take part in all three debates and other parties want in – among them the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) in Northern Ireland. Mebyon Kernow (Sons of Cornwall) the Cornish Nationalists also want in – even though they only stand in six seats out of 650 – and even more ridiculously the Monster Raving Loony Party want to take part. The debates are disintegrating into a shambles. The broadcasters – showing breath taking arrogance – are bullying parties into taking part saying if any party does not turn up the debates will go ahead with the absentee party represented by an empty chair. But should the debates take place? In my opinion no.
First of all five parties might be too many. Seven would be. As the British General Election of 2010 (page 265) put it “The debate format had its limitations. Chiefly arising from tackling eight or more substantial topics in under 90 minutes”. And that was with three participants. Imagine the chaos with seven politicians trying to get a word in. Also a debate works best with just two participants – which is why they work in US Presidential elections and also where there is a “Yes or No” choice like last year’s Scottish independence referendum. They are not suitable for the multi party democracy the UK has been since at least 1974.
However my third reason is most important. I was never for the debates and the events of 2010 proved that. They had the effect of totally overshadowing the rest of the campaign. More seriously they turned politics into a game show – the equivalent of reality TV shows like the X Factor or Britain’s Got Talent. But politics is too important for that. Being good on TV should not be the most important quality for a Prime Minister. And it isn’t. Being good on TV won’t help a Prime Minister when it comes to making the most important decision he/she has to make: Should I send my country’s troops into war? Two of the UK’s last three Prime Ministers -Tony Blair and Cameron – got this wrong, although in Cameron’s case he was rescued by Parliament refusing to back his plan to attack Syria.
The other point is that the UK does NOThave a Presidential system. On May 7th we are electing a Government for the next five years – not a Prime Minister. And the debates in 2010 had the effect of giving more publicity to party leaders who are over exposed anyway.
I hope the parties don’t succumb to the broadcasters’ bullying and the debates don’t happen. For those who use the US as an example, the first presidential debates in the US were between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. They did not happen again until Ford debated Carter in 1976. There is no reason whatsoever why they have to become a regular event here. Remember the broadcasters only care about ratings. We have imported a lot of things from the US. But not everything that works in the US is suitable for the UK. TV debates are one of the things that aren’t.
*UKIP’s two MPs were elected in 2010 as Conservatives. Last year they defected to UKIP, resigning their seats to fight them under their new party’s colours. Both retained their seats.