And another thing…

I’M NOT a fan of chick flicks, so I’ve not been watching Nick Clegg’’s speech to whatever conference he’s speaking to this afternoon.

But I’ll make a wild stab in the dark and guess that he’s going to be no clearer on which party he would choose to support in the event of a hung parliament. David Laws, the LibDem MP, said on Any Questions on Friday that any such decision would not be taken until after polling day.

Thank you, David. Thank you for confirming what I’ve been saying for years about the undemocratic nature, not only of the LibDems but of their most precious policy – proportional representation.

It’s entirely consistent of Laws to say that the public will not be consulted before the LibDems make a decision. That’s the essence of PR: let the little people have their vote, then ignore what they say and start bartering away the very policies they voted for behind closed doors and without reference to them.

Refusing to come clean about which of the main parties the Liberals would support if they got the chance is the opposite of transparent and democratic. But it’s entirely consistent for the Liberals.

THE LIBDEMS have unveiled their general election slogan. I rather like it. It’s pithy, catchy and down with the kids…

LORD ASHCROFT – sterling chap. Thoroughly decent cove, if you ask me. Done absolutely nothing wrong. Salt of the earth, and all that.

So there’s absolutely no reason why any Tory MP or candidate should be embarrassed or shy about coming clean about whether their campaign has been funded, directly or indirectly, by him. Is there?

Tories’ Pavlovian reaction to “Ashcroft” is to bark “Unions!”. Fair enough. I am happy to publish details of all donations received by my campaign from any trade union (must check if I’ve received any recently – I fear not but you never know).

Will Tory candidates now do the same re Ashcroft money?

NICK Clegg has reassured a completely indifferent concerned nation that he would work with one of the other parties in the interests of “fiscal stability” if the election produces a hung parliament.

There’s some lazy assumptions being made about the consequences of a hung parliament. And the laziest is the one that assumes Nick Clegg will even be consulted about anything. Why would he be? If either Labour or the Tories fall short of an overall majority, it would be entirely constitutional and practical for either GB or Dave to lead a minority government, at least for a short while, provided the other wasn’t trying to cobble together a larger coaition with the LibDems.

And it’s in neither of the main parties’ interests to invite the LibDems into government – they would only get in the way. Far better to govern as a minority, even if that means you can’t actually legislate.

YESTERDAY and the day before, as with so many weekends in the past months, I was out canvassing with Team Labour in Glasgow South.

Now, I fully comprehend just how ridiculous this activity looks to normal, well-adjusted adults. Knocking on the doors of complete strangers asking them their opinion about politics, of all things! How anti-social is that…?

The very first time I ever canvassed, it was actually for my local church, rather than for the Labour Party. It didn’t go well. But, as I discovered then and as has been confirmed on every subsequent occasion when the purpose was saving deposits rather than saving souls, it can be a very satisfying experience.

But like many activities that are “good for you”, canvassing is something you enjoy while you’re doing it, rather than in advance of it. Let’s face it: spending the morning or afternoon in the warmth and comfort of your own house is a far more attractive proposition, even in the run-up to a general election.

But it has to be done – even in a so-called “safe” seat like Glasgow South.

I first started canvassing in a regular, “professional” way in the run-up to the 1987 general election in Glasgow Cathcart. The rules were simple: you’re on the doorstep not to persuade recalcitrant voters to switch to Labour, but simply to identify whether or not someone is going to vote Labour. If they are, great. If not, move on.

The techniques have changed over the years – I still have no idea why we write “S” against the name of a LibDem voter, for example – but the ethos remains the same: identify where the Labour vote is.

As a candidate, the canvassing experience is subtly different from that of a foot soldier. For a start, it is an extremely (and genuinely) humbling experience to see local party activists giving up their own free time to chap doors with me. Yes, they’re doing it for the party rather than for a specific candidate, but I certainly wouldn’t get elected if it were not for them.

Similarly, it’s a humbling experience to meet householders who are happy to state their political preferences in my favour, particularly when those voters first voted Labour in a general election that took place before I was born.

You would expect any MP or candidate to say that local canvassing is very positive, that the response of voters has been warm and friendly. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t say so publicly. Nevertheless, I am invariably pleasantly surprised by the general reaction from people on the doorstep to a visit from their MP. If my being there gives someone an unexpected opportunity to air their greivances, then that’s a useful exercise. But more often than not, people are polite and courteous. And, crucially, they enjoy being asked for their opinion.

As to the actual results of the exercise, people who know far better than I how to anayse canvass returns are, even now, examining the numbers, punching buttons on calculators and muttering indecipherable comments to themselves. They tend to share their conclusions with others – including me – on a “need to know” basis.

Yes, there are aspects to canvassing that are less encouraging than others; “It’s a secret ballot, I don’t have to tell you who I’m voting for.” Gosh, really? A secret ballot? I never knew that…

And there are always the rude ones who slam the door in your face, or who sometimes follow you down the garden path in order to hand back the leaflet you’ve just pushed through their letter box. And why not? If it gives someone a strange sense of satisfaction to “stick it to the man”, then fair enough. That’s engagement as well, I suppose.

Hard though it is to believe at the moment, the election will soon be over and a short period of grass roots political inactivity will ensue thereafter. But only for a short period. There are very few springs from which elections of some description are missing, and even in vote-free years, well-organised parties continue their voter identification activities.

It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, and even for those of us who actually enjoy it, the handing back of the clipboards is far more pleasant than the initial discussion about which street will be the first to enjoy our attentions.

But for politicians and the politically-inclined, it’s a fundamental and inevitable element of life.

And there’s no end in sight to it yet.

Ah, well. Good for the soul, and all that.

IN KEEPING with my (slightly) new look election-ready masthead to the blog, here’s a video that’s as close to the positive message I advocated two months ago, arguing that Labour could do worse than try to replicate Ronald Reagan’s outstandingly effective partly election broadcast, “It’s morning again in America”.

This is about as close as we’ve come so far, and it’s actually pretty powerful, although I still think we could do with some of the emotion and heartstring-tugging the Americans are so good at.

Hat-tip to Allan Davies:

DAVID Cameron’s “detoxification” of his party has focussed on so-called “progressive” issues; we are invited to believe that the Tories are now concerned with social exclusion, homosexual rights, inequality, representation of women and minorities in parliament, Third World development and climate change, to name but a few.

I don’t buy it.

Yes, I’m sure there are a handful of Conservatives for whom these issues are, indeed, political priorities. And there is certainly a critical mass of current Tory Party members and MPs who can maintain enough of an interest in these issues to make Cameron’s claims sound plausible.

But in order to discern the true nature of any political party, we should asky why anyone joins his political party of choice in the first place.

I’ll hazard a guess here – and I’m sure you won’t be slow in coming forwards to correct me if I’m wrong: most Tories join the party because their priorities are primarily economic. They want to see lower taxes and a strong economy. Socially they want to see a return to “family values” and their specific definition of what that term means. Historically and instinctively, the Tory Party has been opposed to any improvement in gay rights and suspicious of sexual equality.

On the other hand, people join the Labour Party because they want to fight injustice, either economic injustice towards the poorer and more vulnerable in society, or the injustice of exploitation of workers through the sharp practices of employers.

And that about sums it up for me: no-one really joins the Tory Party in order to fight against injustice (unless you count the “injustice” of having to pay tax). Now, Tories will argue, justifiably, that you can’t protect the vulnerable or provide decent public services unless the economy is generating the wealth needed to pay for them. But those are consequences, not priorities.

This goes to the very heart of the case against Cameron’s Conservatives. He talks a good game about the need to fight inequality, get more women into parliament, combat climate change, etc. But none of these reasons come anywhere close to being the reasons he joined his party in the first place. I would be willing to bet that when he first appeared before the selection committee of Whitney Conservative Association, they did not figure anywhere in his speech.

These are “passport” issues; he needs to display them in order to gain entry into government. But once safely inside, he would pay as much attention to them as a tourist does to his passport once he’s unpacked in the hotel room, subsequently only brandishing it when the need arises.

True progressives – who care deeply about these issues – would do well to ask themselves if the modern Tory Party’s priorities really do reflect their own. And work out the answer before polling day.

“I KNOW that Labour hasn’t done everything right and I know I’m not perfect… take a second look at us and take a long hard look at them.”

Those words from Gordon Brown are probably the most powerful – and potentially the most damaging for the Tories – he has uttered in this long campaign so far.

THE ELECTORAL Commission (moto: “No, we can’t!”) have warned that last night’s law change to force councils to count votes within four hours of the polls closing might be “unworkable”.

Well, yes, it would be if Electoral Returning Officers (EROs) are planning to have dinner with their families that evening. Or go to the cinema. Shame.

This is the point, you see: EROs are not accountable to anyone. They’ve been moaning for years about having to work long hours once every four or five years and now they’re using the increase in postal votes as an excuse finally to get their way.

Even today, the number of EROs who have decided to delay counts until the Friday are outnumbered by those who understand the importance of continuing past practice. How are those in the second category viewed by those in the first? Do the Friday Club look askance at their colleagues – some of whom will be overseeing identical counts in identical constituencies – and shake their heads mournfully in a “tut, tut, it’ll all end in tears” sort of way? Or do they fret that those doing their jobs properly will make the Friday Club look bad?

I think I can guess.

And now members of the Friday Club are wringing their hands in dismay: “Who do these bloody MPs think they are, telling me how to do my job?” No, we’re not telling you how to do your job – we’re telling you simply to do it. Efficiently and promptly. If you are incapable of doing it, then let someone else do it instead.

That’s what MPs get told all the time these days, and it’s good advice.

THERE was a debate on Wednesday in Westminster Hall on the subject of “Accountability of Returning Officers”.

Why the odd title when most people present wanted to talk simply about their desire to have votes in the General Election counted as soon as possible after the polls closed instead of having to wait until Friday? The title was my idea, and a number of MPs submitted a request for a debate with the same title. “Save General Election Night” would not have been deemed an admissible title for a debate, since all debates must be within the remit of the government and a minister has to respond at the end to state the government’s position. “Accountability of Returning Officers”, on the other hand, is clearly a matter on which the Ministry of Justice have a responsibility (it could quite easily and justifiably have been called “Lack of Accountability of Returning Officers”).

David Cairns, the MP for Inverclyde, was chosen to sponsor the 90-minute debate so spoke first, followed by Eric Pickles and then me. You can read the whole debate here or watch it here. Here’s my bit. No doubt you’ll be amused by the fact that the BBC describe me initially as “Evan Harris, LibDem, Oxford  West & Abingdon” before correcting themselves a couple of minutes in. I expect he would be offended as I was.