Or might it be the means to re-igniting the party after a defeat?

For psephologists, one of the most interesting policies expounded by the Conservative party is that they will introduce individual voter registration to ‘restore the integrity of the ballot‘. It is considered a severe loop-hole that households are the registering unit at present, and that this leaves the system open to vote fraud - a problem that can be compounded by postal voting.

No-one can be certain of the effect of individual registration. It has been suggested that recent migrants, those with less-than-fluent English, and lower socio-economic classes could be the most difficult to convert into individually registered voters. This, apparently, could cost Labour in demographics that it is strongest. I will leave the detailed and quantifiable assessment of this claim to Mike Smithson - their analysis would be better-informed that I could be - but there seems a plausible truth that the groups most likely to convert wholesale to the new method are the affluent, educated, middle-classes.

The integrity of elections being paramount, I don’t actually disagree with the policy itself, but there is (of course) a partisan political angle. If a Conservative-minded activist was ready to rejoice at depressing the Labour vote, a Labour-minded partisan might also see huge advantage for his party in this proposal.

We still don’t have a full-grasp on the US model of campaigning - in spite of canvassing activity, the US parties had a much, much higher proportion of activists working the streets than we will ever see at our next election. There are a number of reasons for this, but one of them is (I suspect) the cri-de-guerre of voter registration.

Getting people to campaign for a party, with its policy platform and recent history, can be difficult - a shy activist might agree, but doubts and foibles might mean that their tepid support prevents them from becoming a door-knocking activist. The argument I would make is that giving moderately-engaged potential activists the task of voter registration would be a huge boon for Labour if this policy was enacted.

Getting people registered to vote is axiomatically good if you’re a democrat. Making sure that all who are entitled to register are on the electoral roll is a fundamentally ‘good thing’. Even the supporter who doesn’t feel comfortable defending recent policy decisions can be sent with a rosette, doing the door-to-door registrations with an easy heart - the inherent moral rightness of their activity, juxtaposed with a rosette, converts the wavering supporter into a street co-ordinator. Combine with that idea that Labour would tell a story about the Conservatives ‘disenfranchising the dispossessed’, and you have the sort of battle-cry that could inject real vigour into an otherwise demoralised party (should it lose the next General Election).

Mike has spoken before of the attitude he found in the Labour Party - “the Labour Party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing’ - the feeling of innate moral superiority to the Conservatives, a view that would be re-enforced if given this opportunity. My feeling is that, whatever short-term loss of votes Labour might suffer, that the energisation of the activist base with a new moral mission would be hugely beneficial in helping resurrect them from the depths of defeat.

I don’t think the policy is necessarily being imposed for partisan reasons, though it will be painted that way, and I think it could be a very important move to make elections beyond reproach. However, if one considers the partisan and electoral implications, I think the benefit to Labour in the medium-term could outweigh any loss of votes in the short-term.

Morus

Note from Robert: I will be updating the software this site runs on this evening, and there will be a brief period when comment posting is suspended

How many U30s will make it into the Commons next time?

I’ve been following the selection process for a Labour candidate in the safe seat of Erith & Thamesmead with some interest for the last couple of weeks. For those unfamiliar, there are eight candidates (all female) competing, and the battle-lines have been drawn between the union-supported candidate (Rachel Maskell) who has the backing of Charlie Whelan, and Georgia Gould, the daughter of Lord Gould (Phillip) who was the pollster for Tony Blair. The latter has been brought to national attention for enjoying the backing of the likes of Alistair Campbell and Tessa Jowell.

I must confess to being caught in something of a bind about this process, designed to choose a successor MP (in all likelihood) to the retiring incumbant, Ian John Austin. Whether or not the accusation has merit, there is no doubt that Miss Gould has been damaged by suggestions of nepotism that would have been distinctly diminished had she been somewhat older and more experienced in anything but having studied at Oxford. That said, the focus has been not only on her parentage and connections within the New Labour machine, but upon her age, and in spite of my revulsion at even the appearance of nepotism, I find myself strangely sympathetic to her plight.

I accept and appreciate the arguments against ‘young’ candidates - by which I mean those aged between 18 and 30 years of age. Whilst tipping my hat to the extraordinary achievement of William Pitt the Younger, I do not believe that (generally-speaking) someone within that age bracket is qualified for front-bench office let alone on the government benches, and can accept that to have a significant minority of the House of Commons lacking the wisdom (that is magically bestowed at the age of thirty) might be inadvisable.

That said, I dislike and reject the tenor of the arguments that are raised any time a candidate under the age of thirty is nominated - arguments familiar to anyone who frequents activist websites such as ConservativeHome, where candidates young and old are announced. There is an established chorus of objectionists who will decry the lack of ‘life experience’ and ‘maturity of judgement’ of the under-30s, and who will claim that such candidates ‘have never done anything with their lives’ and should ‘come back in ten years, when they’ve learnt something’. I’m not impressed and I’m not convinced.

With the caveats that I think it would be a mistake to have all but the most brilliant of U30s on the front bench, and that I would be concerned if they comprised more than (say) 20% of the House of Commons, I am of the opinion that there is a dire need for both fresh blood and some genuine representation of a generation of adults who see the world very differently from the generations of their fathers and grandfathers.

Those aged, like myself, between 18 and 30 years of age are in the full maturity of their faculties and are adjudged by the State to be capable of all adult decisions - from marriage to mortgages to military service on the front line. My generation has been the long-suffering party to student top-up fees, impossible house prices, poor employment prospects, massive mandated debt, and will inherit all the mistakes of generations deemed to be our betters in matters of governmental wisdom.

The under 30s (being largely single without children) work the longest hours of any comparable demographic outside of the US, pay the highest levels of irredeemable taxation, and draw the least benefit from money spent by government on healthcare and FT education. My generation has had a fairly poor deal from government for as long as I can remember, and something sticks in the throat about being told that we should not be allowed to stand for winnable seats on account of date of birth, in spite of the law allowing representation from the age of 18.

I do not claim that Parliament would be dramatically improved by the introduction of newer, younger blood - however, I like to think that some cogniscence of what it means to belong to a portion of the adult population that is so chronically under-represented in Parliament (there are only 3 MPs, to the best of my knowledge, under 30 years of age) might have led to some degree of restraint in the measures that have been taken to make my generation more indebted and with more challenging prospects than those faced by generations previous.

Parliament would not collapse were there to be 15-20% of MPs under the age of thirty - indeed, it might provide some perspective for those MPs who have no understanding of what it means to grow up in the last 20 years. MPs, by-and-large did not grow up with the internet, or access to credit facilities, or the burden of being expected to work nearly full-time through their degrees. To understand the pressures on a huge swathe of the adult voting population requires people who have shared in that experience - a peculiarity of experience almost totally lacking in the Commons at present. I can understand some reticence towards younger candidates (though it is not as though the life experience garnered by their elders has served my generation particularly well), but I dislike the antipathy that surrounds such candidates for having the temerity to be young.

I suspect there are many complex arguments as to why some Labour members of Erith & Thamesmead might not want 22-year-old Georgia Gould to inherit that seat as their MP, but of all the strikes against her, I don’t believe that her age should the most significant detraction.

I’ve recently been in touch with representatives of all the major parties, seeking data and contact details for candidates under the age of 30 who are contesting ‘winnable’ seats. This is partly to showcase the talent of a political generation who have yet to emerge, but also to kick-start the PB.com parlour-game of ‘pick the potential future PM’ - it is often said that the next-Prime-Minister-but-one might not yet even be an MP, so this could be the chance for our insightful regulars to match Mike Smithson in selecting a winner at odds of greater than 50-1. I’ll hopefully be running such a piece in the next week or so (a promise to add to that of an article on three-way marginals).

As always, the views of the PB.com community are more than welcome. Happy Saturday.

Morus (aged 25-and-a-half)

Would he be a better face for the coming spending cuts?

This afternoon I reinvested a small part of my budget winnings with two bets on the post of chancellor. The wagers are linked and both offer, I believe, good value for money.

My first was to take the 9/2 from William Hill Politics that Alastair Darling will be replaced as chancellor during 2009. These seem great odds and, effectively, also give you coverage should there, indeed, be a 2009 general election. Whatever the outcome of that it’s hard to see Darling still in his job.

The second bet has been at a tasty 33/1 that the Tory treasury number 2, Philip Hammond, will be the next chancellor. Surely that’s going to be George Osborne I can see you thinking. Yep - possibly but just think for a minute of the role for the chancellor in the likely incoming Tory government.

For the Tories will inherit the need for public expenditure cuts on a scale that has not been seen for decades. The chancellor will be the public face of the inevitable squeeze and the state school educated Hammond who had a considerable career in private industry before entering politics might be better positioned than Osborne

Have you noticed how in the past few days it’s been Hammond who has been presenting the Tory case on many of the key TV programmes. I thought he did really well on Question Time last night. He has a nice manner and comes over as someone who is reasonable and caring in a way that Osborne does not. His age, he’s 52, gives him the maturity that eludes the 37 year old George.

Cameron will, I’m sure, find a key role for Osborne but chancellor might not be the best position for him in the current climate.

So the Darling bet more than covers the Hammond bet in the event of Brown replacing him this year. Hammond becomes my choice for the Tories.

The Ladbrokes 33/1 is not going to last long.

Ipsos-MORI

Will party ratings move in line with economic optimism?

This is the latest Economic Optimism Index from MORI which, as can be seen, has very much turned round and this month reached just -2%. This is the best since Mr Brown become prime minister and perhaps from the Labour perspective is the best indicator that they might just be in with a shout.

The index is taken by subtracting the negative number from the positive one and the results since 2004 are plotted on the chart.

There was a theory some months ago that the trends on this chart would be mirrored during the following weeks in the opinion polls. Thus the peak of negative numbers last year coincided with Labour worst ratings in decades. If that still holds good then Brown Central might see a bit of a bounce.

But will it? It is hard to predict anything other than gloom for Labour in the current climate and it could be that a sea change of opinion has taken place.

So the theory might be amended so that in the absence of other negatives then an increase in economic optimism is good for the government while a decline is bad for the government in all circumstances. We shall see.