Is there a best time to take a position if you know that doing so will cost you support?

The Labour frontbench’s decision not to support a Liberal Democrat amendment which would hold open membership of the Single Market was an interesting one. If, as is reported, it was simply an attempt to keep the option on the table, then one might reasonably argue that, by allowing it to be defeated, Labour reduced their own wriggle room in the eventuality that they become the Government.

And they’re entitled to do that, if they see that it is to their political advantage.

But, as a political party seeking to gain the support of those voters who wish to remain in the European Union, it might be a risky strategy. Yes, the options available to Remain voters are quite limited in many ways - the Conservatives and UKIP are obviously ruled out, the Greens and Liberal Democrats are too far back to be credible alternatives in many places just now - but that might not last.

Which brings me to my original question. Labour can, for now, get away with not really taking a clear view on Britain’s future inside or outside the European Union. With the Government displaying quite astonishing levels of incompetence and unreliability, merely not being them makes Labour look better than they might otherwise do. But, at some point, if they get into power (and it shouldn’t be ruled out as the implications finally dawn on the Conservatives that Brexit is not going to be easy, cheap or painless, or even what any of them want), they’re going to have to take a stance.

Less than three weeks ago, I was at a conference of the Save Romania Union, a new political party, who have gone through some teething pains. Having formed as an anti-corruption, pro-reform, pro-European Party, as they have formed a set of working principles, they have lost some of their initial supporters, who don’t want to adhere to those principles, or at least, some of those principles. As policy decisions are taken, you lose people who don’t like that particular choice.

And Labour have the same problem. Take a clear stance on membership of the Single Market, and you risk losing either the support of left-wing Eurosceptics, or of young, pro-Remain, voters. Similarly with the Customs Union, or freedom of movement. But, if you don’t have a clear stance going into Government, you’re not likely to make a good fist of negotiating with the European Union, who do know what it is they are trying to defend.

There’s a possible election to be fought and won,  preferably with the aid of an army of young, committed activists, who may not be quite so committed if they think that Labour are a pro-Brexit party at heart.

So, Labour are in a bind. They need to gain and retain as much support as they can to get elected, but risk early disenchantment of those supporters at the very time they will need loyalists most. What is a political party to do?...

Calling for a pause, the new anti-strategy strategy

In the modern era of soundbites and short term solutions to long term problems, I have noticed recently that, if you really have no idea what to do about something you don't like, calling for a pause is an increasingly popular choice.

For example, Rachel Reeves is apparently calling for a pause in the rollout of Universal Credit whilst, well, what exactly? Labour activists in Camden called for a pause in work on HS2 rather than call for it to be scrapped altogether - perhaps because scrapping it would be unpopular with Labour politicians in the North and Midlands.

You may not be able to turn the clock back,
but you can apparently stop it.

Effectively, what is being said is, "We don't like this, but we aren't sure what we should do instead, in case this turns out to be popular.". And, I guess, that's fair enough, unless you were planning to be running the country some day soon.

And, before anyone says that I'm being unfair on Labour, I must note the performance of Liberal Democrats during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill. The fact that a pause was required rather exposed the fact that the initial work of pre-scrutiny hadn't been done terribly well, and it was only when Liberal Democrat activists went ballistic that time was taken to look at it more thoroughly. It still wasn't that great a piece of legislation...

Our politics doesn't help. Opposition, rather than constructive engagement, is the order of the day in the Commons, whilst the Lords is rather better at scrutiny and amendment but suffers from a justified reticence to overturn the position of an elected House down the corridor. And pre-scrutiny takes time, when Ministers want to be getting on with things.

So, we can expect to see more calls for pauses, in the hope that opposition can be rallied against whatever it is, whilst the policy development concept withers on the vine across the political spectrum. Because opposition and legislation based on anecdote and prejudice is so much easier than developing a philosophically consistent view of the world...

The afternoon after the day after the night before...

So, having had the County elections, the count, and a good night's sleep, it is Saturday, and time to think about the future. Ah, but which future to think about? 2014 and the European Parliament elections? 2015, with a General Election and some difficult District Council elections? Or 2017, when County seats are up again?

The obvious answer is all three, I suppose. For us, integrated campaigning is the key. We'll need to select a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, devise a strategy for the next four years, and ensure the means to deliver it. Naturally, as the Local Party's Treasurer, I have a role to play in that, and I have some ideas about the rest of it too.

So, a deep breath and a few weeks of quiet contemplation, and it will be time to get back onto that horse and ride.

But first, study and Croatia beckon. Oh yes, and some rather fine sausages...