In this month´s Barn Richard Wyn Thomas explains why he believes David Cameron could be the next Prime Minister and what consequences that may have for Wales:
“There were always two schools of thought about Gordon,” he said. “One lot believed that he’d spent the last ten years filling up a filing cabinet with really great policy ideas ready for the moment he became Prime Minister. The other lot suspected that he’d spent the last ten years just plotting to become Prime Minister, and that he wouldn’t have a clue what to do once he got the job. Now we know that the cupboard was empty after all…” Then, as if that wasn't enough, he added the following: “The problem with Gordon is that he can’t delegate and he can’t make decisions. Great!” And that was the moment when I started to believe that the Conservatives could win the next general election that Gordon Brown will have to call by the beginning of May 2010.
Until recently, I had supposed that it wasn't possible for the Conservatives to secure a majority in that election. Mainly because the electoral system is so set against them. The obstacles that the voting system creates for them have now become the subject of a small industry in the academic world. The unfairness springs from various sources. The over-representation of Wales and Scotland is one of them: the fact that we, anti-Conservative countries, have more MPs per capita than England. Another problem is the fact that the Boundaries Commission's detailed and lengthy process of redrawing electoral boundaries cannot respond quickly enough to the way England's population is growing in the south-east of that country, meaning that seats in the north (Labour) are smaller than seats in the south-east (Conservative). Ontop of that, the Conservatives have been pretty poor at lobbying the Boundaries Commission, which means that they don't always gain to the degree expected from the process of redrawing boundaries. The result of all this is that aknowledged fact that the Conservatives have receive more votes than Labour in England in the 2005 election whilst Labour won more English seats. But perhaps the following figures best demonstrate the unfairness: in 2005 Labour won one seat for every 26,860 votes it succeeded to gain, The Tories received one seatfor every 44,306 votes! Although the Conservatives´situation is far better than that of the poor Liberal Democrats (96,482 votes per seat in 2005), it still means that winning a majority represents an uphill battle. According to some estimates, the Tories wouldhave to win as much as 10% more votes than Labour in a general election to secure a majority of only one seat! As that seems very unlikely, I've tended to believe that a hung parliament is the most likely outcome next time. If I were a betting man, that's where I'd place my money.
Lately, however, I've been having second thoughts. Despite how unlikely it seems, there are several factors that have caused me to suspect that the Conservatives could beat the (voting) system. Each of the factors will be familiar ones for those interested in the political world: the increasing prospect of an international economic depression, the end of the tactical voting aginst the Conservatives which has been such an obvious characteristic of British elections since 1997 as the memory of Thatcher and Major recedes, the efforts of the Conservatives to target key constituencies (thatnks to the generosity of Lord Ashcroft of Belize), and so on. But the words of my friend have pushed me beyond doubt. I now believe that there is a real possibility that the Conservatives will succeed to gain a majority in the next election.
This friend is a Labourite to the tips of his fingers. His loyalty to the cause is overwhelming as well as reflecting a deep conviction. He is also a man in a position to know exactly how things are in the upper ranks of the British government. He believed in 'Gordon', had looked forward avidly and confidently for the moment the Promised One would inherit the Kingdom. But now he is completely disillusioned. And if the picture he painted of the condition of things behind the curtains of 10 Downing Street is correct - and there have been a number of similar suggestions in the London press, as well - then it will prove to be very difficult for Labour to discover either the direction or the alternative ideas that can turn back the Conservative tide.
Over theyears, a lot of attention has been given to developments within the Conservative Party in Wales, particularly to the process of making the party more Welsh. But despite how interesting that process is, despite the contributions of individuals such as Nick Bourne, Glyn Davies, David Melding and even David Davies to the politics of Devolved Wales, the attitude of the Conservatives wasn't of any lasting importance in reality. Perhaps things would have gone the same way whatever the Conservatives had said or done. But if there is now the real possibility of a Conservative government being formed in London within the next two years (the next general election has to be called before May 2010), then it makes that party's attitude towards Wales more important than ait has been at any time since the mid 1990s. What then is that attitude?
Remembering where the power lies within the party, let us begin at the top with David Cameron himself, and particularly with the important speech that he gave in Edinburgh in December. the Tory emphasised his personal commitment to the Union. Preserving the Union is of key importance, he said, so much so that it was worth putting up with a small amount of unfairness - such as the West Lothian Question, for instance - rather than introduce reforms which could threaten its future - such as, perhaps, a Parliament for England. According to press reports, the significance of the speech was that Cameron had declared to all and sundry that he would not give in to the temptation of playing the 'English card'. Fair enough. But there's more.
Remember that Cameron and his advisors have studied Tony Blair very carefully. Before 1997, his strategy was to try to concentrate the public's attention on those matters where Labour could hope to gain an electoral advantage, whilst attempting to kill any discussion of those matters which could cause embarrassment for the party. Announcing a referendum on devolution for Wales and Scotland, as well as a referendum on British membership of the Euro, were perfect examples of how to kill the discussiion in two controversial areas. There's no need to talk about that now, was the message. You'll get your chance soon. In the meantime, how about discussing the government's weak spots, such as the condition of the public services and Conservative corruption...?
A decade and more later, I suppose that the Tories have adopted a similar strategy. They have realised that there aren't many votes to be won through emphasising constitutional matters, such as England's position within the Union. It isn't important enough to enough people to justify making much of the matter, especially as doing so would present Gordon Brown with the opportunity to wear the Union Jack and portray himself as Defender of the Kingdom. The message of the Edinburgh speech was that there is no gap between Labour and the Conservatives on the matter of the Union. There's no need to talk about that right now, then. Instead, how about concentrating on those matters which are weak spots for the government, such as the state of public services and Labour corruption...?
If Cameron's strategy works then what is its significance for Wales? Simply, the Conservatives won't be offering any guidance on the future of devolved Wales. And certainly enough, Cameron won't use any political capital to force the 'refusers' within the ranks of his own party in wales - and there´s a substantial number of them - to support the devolution of full lawmaking powers to the Assembly. The status quo wins.
Continue to Part 2
0 comments:
Post a Comment