Woolas and Election Campaigning

There seems to be some hand-wringing over at the FT that the way election campaigns are run will have to change significantly as a result of the court's decision that Phil Woolas is guilty of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act.

Contrary to being a 'bizarre' precedent, I think many in the business world, who must be honest with the City and consumers when trying to gain money (as dictated by laws and regulations galore), will find it amazing that politicians are not subject to similar restrictions when trying to gain votes.

Smears are nothing new, but I think it is entirely fair for politicians to be obliged not to deliberately lie about someone else's character.  The idea that this is alright because it is 'normal practice' in politics does the business of politics no favours at all.

Not lying for personal advantage is a fairly basic starting point for ethical behaviour. Indeed, many industries have imposed such rules on themselves without needing an external body such as a court to make them do so.  The communications industry and the pharmaceutical industry are two such that have Codes of Conduct promoting ethical practice, and the public affairs industry has just launched the UK Public Affairs Council to do the same.

To be clear, I don't mean my argument to apply to policy positions or promises, on which politicians must be allowed to alter their views.  Governing is a reality which simply can't be prejudged and Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament cannot be bound by pre-election promises.  The electorate are pretty savvy about this anyway, so I'm not sure people are really misled when a politician goes back on a policy pledge.  Smearing your opponent is quite another matter - and outside election campaigns would be libel.  Which begs the question - why should it be OK to libel someone in order to get yourself elected?

UPDATE: This article at Conservative Home confuses policy issues with the point of this judgement that campaigners can't lie about the other candidate: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/11/robert-halfon-mp-the-implications-of-the-phil-woolas-case.html


UPDATE 2: The public agree with me (how gratifying!)

Cameron's Speech: National Interest vs Self Interest

This is what stood out for me in Cameron's speech to the Conservative Conference today.  He was clear that his party is acting in the national interest, as is Nick Clegg's, and in his call to the public to join in the work - to volunteer, set up a business, engage with their public services etc.  Together in the National Interest - the words were said so many times it was almost too much, but that is how to get a message across (we can all learn from Brown on that point).

Of course the unsaid comparison is with the Labour party - the party of vested interests (the unions) that acted against the national interest (the large public debt the country now has) and even, in Ed Miliband, perhaps a selfish leader?  A man who sacrificed his brother for his own ambition and who is 'too busy' to put his name on his child's birth certificate?

A clear message then, but are the voters listening?  I can't wait for the next polls to come out.

Audrey recommends

This post from Alistair Campbell is excellent - he clearly tells us what No.10 is doing wrong in its communications and tactics on the child benefit issue.

It seems to me (and the polls confirm) that most sensible people agree with the policy and its aims, but a completely unnecessary fuss has been created due to poor communications.

How the public sector voted

I'm just catching up with Ipsos Mori's Labour Conference briefing pack.  An interesting fact on page 12, which I had not appreciated before, is that only 34% of public sector workers voted Labour in the 2010 General Election, compared to 46% in 2001 and 52% in 1997.

Given the Conservatives' clear message about cuts, I find this surprising.  What do you think?

Communicating on the voters' priorities

The coalition wants to talk about spending cuts and reform of the public services, especially education and the NHS.  Its narrative, as many others have pointed out, is not yet clear and compelling.

However, the Economist (11th September issue) points out that for the public, the overwhelmingly most important issue facing Britain is the economy - concern about the NHS and education is at its lowest point for 25 years, having started to decline as important issues from 2002.  Their source is IPSOS Mori.  The Economist removed immigration and unemployment from their graph for clarity, but the full one is still interesting:

So, what does this mean for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the coalition government?  That as well as communicating their narrative effectively, they need 'a plan for growth' to be part of that narrative, exactly as Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have been pointing out.  The government needs to show it understands people's concerns for their jobs and the state of the economy, and that they are doing what they can to help.  Measures announced in the Emergency Budget have already been forgotten and could do with being repeated ad nauseam. What else?  Well, often, the best thing the government can do for business is to get out of its way!  So deregulation or streamlining how regulations work would help take some of the burden off business without spending much public money.  

Which reminds me of Reagan's famous quote on the government view of the economy: 'if it moves, tax it, if it still moves, regulate it, if it stops moving, subsidise it'!

Public to comment on Bills?

Not much attention has been given to this proposal among the fuss about voting systems and the number of MPs.    But members of the public having the right to comment directly on legislation as it is going through the Houses of Parliament is incredibly radical.  It is an attempt to bring direct democracy to the UK - and I am entirely against it.

Give the right to random individuals to amend laws governing us all and you invite the crazed ('passionate') about single issues to rule over the moderate, and silent, majority.  That is what representative democracy is there to avoid.  I elect my MP to debate and amend legislation and given that they are a member of a political party that is made up of a broad coalition of interests in the country, they will tend to represent a broad section of the electorate quite successfully.  Who does my neighbour represent but him or herself?

More importantly, who do the RSPCA represent?  Greenpeace?  These kinds of interest groups have a very strong tendency to authoritarianism - if individuals don't behave the way they want them to, they reach for the tools of the state (legislation and taxes) to force them to do so.  I shudder at the thought of giving them power over legislation.

I can't really see what safeguards could be built in to avoid such undue influence by interest groups though.  One could perhaps filter out the sort of copy-and-paste 'grassroots' campaigns that so burden MPs' secretaries now.  But more importantly how can one ensure that the much larger number of people that are impacted by legislation but not passionate about the issue at stake have their voice to counteract such lobbying efforts?  

Or will MPs simply overrule the public amendments?  In which case how will the public react?  What is the point of allowing the public to have an input and then ignoring it?  That will fuel yet more cynicism about politics.

On all counts, this proposal fails.  It will not yield better legislation or better democracy.

Fortunately, this reform will be of the slower kind and will afford the opportunity to learn from mistakes - there will be 'pilots' only in November 2011.

*image found on Nuclear Power Gallery 

Voting and all that jazz

The anti-AV camp is already limbering up, with a few good posters being designed and featured on Tom Harris' blog.  This latest attempt makes its point about the complexity of AV very effectively and will play on people's fear of things they don't understand.  It also succeeds in presenting First Past the Post as a fair system, thereby reinforcing the message that the coalition is trying to change things to put themselves at an advantage.

Clever.