This week’s hard-hitting report from the London Market Group – London Matters – pulls few punches when it comes to describing the scale and breadth of the challenges facing the London insurance market. It deserves a wide audience.
The London insurance market matters, not just to the UK insurance industry but to the UK economy. The report highlights a few key stats that should remind everyone of this: “The London Market now controls more than £60bn of annual premiums, employs 48,000 people, generates more than 20% of ‘The City’s’ GDP and over 8% of London’s GDP.” But, the report produced by Boston Consulting argues, this position is being steadily eroded, especially in the important emerging economies around the world and in some of the classes of business, such as reinsurance, that have long underpinned London’s success.
London insurance market under threat
It throws out many reasons for this, some of which are partially out of London’s control, the growing desire to buy locally when capacity, expertise and cover are available being prime among them. Of course, getting close to those local markets is something the key London players are doing and they clearly need to step up their efforts on that front but if the political and economic forces in in other countries are pushing people towards local players then it will be an uphill battle.
The report highlights the diminishing share London has in emerging markets and I have heard some firms already dismiss this concern by arguing that it doesn’t matter if they have a smaller share of a rapidly growing market so long as their revenues are growing. This is an insular and short-term view. A decreasing market share means a decreasing influence, it means that when new risks emerge those markets won’t think to look to London for a solution as London will have become a tiny blip on their radar screens. It also means that London will lose the ability to shape and guide those markets, thereby ensuring it remains at the forefront of everybody’s thinking.
Call for unity
Another area where the London Market Group has hit the target is its call for greater unity of purpose across the London Market when it comes to putting the market’s case to regulators and governments and promoting it around the globe. The proliferation of market bodies in such a commercially and physically tight-knit market baffles many outsiders. The LMG under its forceful chairman Steve Hearn is certainly doing its best to tackle that problem. It will need alot of goodwill and a fresh willingness on the part of some major corporate and trade associations egos to take a back seat if it is to succeed.
One issue that it wants the market to lobby on with a clearer voice is the cost of regulation, one of the potential deterrents to doing business in London identified by the report. It needs to be careful on this.
The cost of regulation is not the only reason why London is more expensive. As the report vividly illustrates the transactional and processing costs of doing business in the London Market are still too high. The 20 year drive to reduce these costs by making the market more efficient continues to proceed at, at best, a stately pace. It needs to speed up if it is to persuade politicians and regulators that they need to play their part in reducing the costs of doing business in London.
Attacking regulators and the costs of complying with their ever more complex regimes wins easy applause from market practitioners. It doesn’t always win you many friends among regulators, politicians or the wider public and nor should the industry expect it to. A more nuanced approach to this debate is needed. One of the strengths of London over many other domiciles and local markets is the quality and strength of its regulation. The market should show more willingness to promote this as a reason for doing business here. If it does I can’t help feeling that regulators will be more sympathetic to arguments about where costs do exceed the benefits the market has shown it is willing to promote.
Everybody with an interest in the future of the London Market should read this report and ask themselves what they can do to defend and promote the market.
The report and a CEO summary can be downloaded from the LMG’s website – Download reports
We are six months away from a General Election and rarely in the post-war era can the outcome be so uncertain this close to polling day.
Edward Heath: called snap election in 1974
I’ve seen some commentators suggest that the first election of 1974 was similarly wide open but the crucial difference is that it was snap election. It was called by Prime Minister Edward Heath on a simple “Who governs the country?” question in the face of crippling strikes by miners and power workers that had reduced the country to a three day working week with mid-week football matches played in the afternoon. At the end of August 1973 we were not wildly speculating on the outcome of the next General Election as we were just a little over three years into the Heath government.
The big unknown as election campaign of 1974 progressed was how well Jeremy Thorpe’s resurgent Liberal Party would do: it was the first election for over 40 years where the prospect of a significant vote for a third party threatened to disturb the two-party duopoly of British politics. Its impact was relatively minor in the end, polling a sizeable 19.3% but winning only 14 seats. Talks with the Tories over a potential coalition were over very quickly and a minority Labour government under Harold Wilson came into office.
How different from today.
That third party is now a real force in British politics and in government. All the talk now is about the likely impact of a fourth party in England – UKIP. The Scots and Welsh already have four party politics, of course, with their powerful nationalist parties.
Decline of Labour-Tory duopoly
Behind this is a story of the decline in the Labour-Tory stranglehold on British politics. From its high point in 1951 when they grabbed a massive 93% of the popular vote, through a 75% share in 1974 to 68% at the last General Election, the latest polls suggest that Labour Conservatives between them will be lucky to command a 65% share next year. Thus predictions about the outcome are highly speculative as the prospect of a genuine four party contest in the first-past-the-post system used for Westminster elections is a new dimension that has election experts frankly guessing. Some seats could be won on barely 25% of the vote.
So, everything is to play for. There are few certainties beyond the Liberal Democrats losing votes and seats (but no clarity on how far they will fall) and UKIP emerging as a major disruptive force.
Norman Baker: Get me out of here before I lose my seat
From now until next May every national political event has the potential to exert a major influence over the outcome which is why the resignation of Norman Baker, a junior Liberal Democrat minister in the Home Office hit the headlines and has prompted so much comment. The simple truth is that it has very little to do with his dissatisfaction with the Home Secretary and an awful lot to do with his need to distance himself from the Tories who threaten his Lewes seat. Attracting less interest was the resignation of two other Lib Dem MPs – Jenny Willott and Mark Hunter – as junior whips: both have small majorities over the Conservatives. The Coalition is effectively dead as the Liberal Democrats start the grim struggle to recover some of the electoral ground they have lost since 2010. What we are seeing in office now is much nearer to a minority Conservative government than the Rose Garden Coalition of 2010.
Can the UKIP bandwagon be stalled in Rochester?
It is also why the by-election in Rochester and Stroud on 20 November will take on a such a major significance.
Is this where the Tories halt the UKIP bandwagon or will it gather fresh momentum that will see it fatally undermine Cameron’s prospects of a second term as Prime Minister? No-one seems to know.
If Mark Reckless wins the seat for UKIP then we will very likely see further Tory defections before the General Election and maybe some local deals on electoral pacts, although it is hard to see a rampant UKIP agreeing not to contest Tory seats unless it is given a clear run elsewhere. A UKIP win will force Cameron to turn up the anti-EU rhetoric which is already in danger of alienating the pro-Europe centre ground that he will need if the Tories are to stand any chance of winning with an outright majority: a rock and a hard place.
A Tory win should stabilise the Tories, at least a little, but it is unlikely to dampen UKIP’s determination to push itself to fore and ensure that we have that unpredictable, unprecedented four-way contest.
Marie-Louise Rossi, who died on Sunday night (26 October) at the age of 58, left a huge legacy for the London insurance market for which she acted as a powerful, persuasive advocate for over a decade while at the helm of the International Underwriting Association (IUA).
Marie-Louise Rossi: London Market champion
She combined her 30 year career in the insurance industry with a strong interest in politics which saw her serve as a councillor in Westminster and also fight the Parliamentary seat of the Cities of London and Westminster, albeit for different parties. The interest politics came from her father, Sir Hugh Rossi who was an Conservative MP 26 years and served as a junior minister under both Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher.
At Oxford, where she studied Literae Humaniores (Philosophy and Ancient History) at St Anne’s College, she was treasurer and secretary of the famous debating society at the Oxford Union. She also became involved in the Bow Group – a pro-Europe Conservative organisation drawing on the One Nation tradition – and later served as its chairman.
Her insurance career began when she graduated in 1979 and became a credit and political risks broker, first with Hogg Robinson and later with the Sedgwick Group. After a short period as a consultant she was appointed chief executive of the London International and Reinsurance Market Association (LIRMA) in November 1993.
Five years later LIRMA merged with the Institute of London Underwriters to create a single, unified voice for the London company market and Rossi was appointed as it first chief executive. Her impact on the market in this role was enormous.
It was during the early part of the current century that the negotiations in Europe over the single market in reinsurance and with the United States over access to the US were at their most intense and sensitive. She was in her element.
An intensely intelligent woman, which sometimes made her seem a little distanced from mere social chit-chat, she demonstrated perfect mastery of every brief. Occasionally frustrated but never outwardly angry she knew how to play the long game that is essential for success when negotiating in international forums.
The success of the Reinsurance Directive which opened up European markets in 2005 was due in no small part to her persistence and ability to build alliances with key interest groups in the political labyrinth that is the European Union.
With the passing of the directive she felt her work at the IUA was done and left in 2005 to pursue her political career, leaving a confident, well organised and extremely effective trade body as her lasting legacy.
After serving as a Conservative councillor in the late 80s and early 90s, she found she was out of step with increasingly strident anti-European tone of the party and after a spell chairing the all party European Movement, decided to join the Liberal Democrats and it was under this new political banner that she fought the 2005 General Election, failing to make much impression on the strong Conservative majority in the Cities of London and Westminster.
Recent years saw her involved in high level lobbying for the industry on wide variety of topics including environmental liability, political and terrorism risks and piracy as well as branching out into setting up and advising new businesses.
She battled with cancer for several years but rarely let it stop her pursuing her twin political and industry careers, although these became increasingly fragmented as a result of the illness.
She died peacefully with her elderly parents Sir Hugh and Lady Rossi at her bedside. She leaves a brother and two sisters but never married.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Originally published on Post Online on 27 October
Scottish financial firms should put customers first and tell us their independence contingency plans
Should financial institutions domiciled in Scotland come clean now on what their intentions are should the independence referendum next week signal the end of the Union?
Scottish finance has a proud history
Many will say that all institutions have contingency plans should this happen but that sharing them could make it look as if they are taking sides, upset the markets and cause unnecessary concern among customers. Well the markets are already upset and most customers, if they have any sense, should be concerned. That leaves “taking sides” and this can only be a worry because presumably most – if not all – major financial institutions in Scotland would be heading south pretty quickly and they feel that to say so publicly at this stage could be seen as strong backing for the No campaign and its warnings of financial chaos.
They owe it to their customers to set aside such political sensitivities and explain what they will be doing on Friday week if the vote goes in favour of creating an independent Scotland.
There is a very long list of sound reasons why banks, insurers companies and fund managers would be unwise to remain in Scotland if the vote is Yes next week. The major banks, as many commentators have already pointed out, are too big to be offered any sort of guarantee by the Scottish government or whatever lender of last resort Alex Salmond has sketched out on the back of an envelope somewhere. Collapse of a major bank is something of a doomsday scenario but we have been very close to that particular cliff-edge in the last decade so it is an issue that has to be taken seriously and, as far as I can see, the pro-independence lobby doesn’t come anywhere near having an answer.
But the problems are far wider and likely to touch on every financial firm in Scotland and should seriously worry their customers.
Just how likely is it in the crazy 18 months there will be between the vote and the severing of the ties with the United Kingdom that any sort of adequate system of financial regulation and consumer protection will be put in place? Consumers of financial services products in the United Kingdom now enjoy a very high level of protection and access to compensation should the products they have bought turn out to be inadequate, they are victims of fraud or the institutions looking after their money collapse – and even these fall painfully short from time-to-time. Would an independent Scotland be able to match that within 18 months?
Add to that doubt the substantial currency risk that hangs over an independent Scotland and the serious doubts about the speed with which it might be admitted to the European Union (Spain would be a major objector as it would not want to do anything to encourage its own Catalonian independence movement) and you would have to have a very robust attitude to financial risk if you live in England, Wales or Northern Ireland and wanted to keep your money in Scotland. It would effectively be an offshore domicile, beyond the reach of British or EU regulators – just imagine trying to get your money out if something goes wrong.
This is why we should be hearing from those financial firms that currently manage and invest money for people all over the United Kingdom: it is called putting customers first.
My pension fund is managed by a Scottish-based institution and I can tell you it won’t be for much longer if the Yes campaign wins and the company in question doesn’t come south pretty quickly. I imagine most other sensible investors will do the same. Whether we move our money or the institutions move it will be a terrible blow for the Scottish economy and a very sad final chapter in the proud history of Scottish finance.
This week will see the already bloated, unelected House of Lords enlarged still further, ensuring that it retains its unenviable position as the largest parliamentary chamber in the world.
With a total of 828 members (although 54 are listed as being on ‘leave of absence’) it is larger than the unicameral European Parliament that represents an entire continent. Add to that huge number the 650 members of the House of Commons and by time 20 more Peers are nominated this week our national parliament will have almost 1500 members, leaving only the Chinese National People’s Congress – which is not a directly elected body – with its 3000 delegates as larger.
Hardly surprising people feel an intense distaste for the world of politics, especially when you start to look at the costs of maintaining such an unwieldy Parliament.
Ermine Arms Race
There will be alot said about the need for more ‘working Peers’ and the need to balance the representation of the parties to better reflect the House of Commons. This is a lot of tosh and has been the justification for this bizarre ermine arms race since Tony Blair’s Premiership. Has it never occurred to the leaders of our political parties that this could equally be achieved by taking people out of the House of Lords? After all, they are unelected and only owe their appointments to patronage.
Of course it hasn’t occurred to them, sealed into their political bubble in Westminster.
None of the main party leaders has ever lived or worked in what the rest of us would describe as the ‘real world’ so they are incapable of seeing things as the rest of us do. They occasionally profess to worry about how people are getting disconnected from politics, especially when they see the steadily falling turnouts at elections, but are utterly incapable of responding to the important challenge that throws down. They can justify to themselves having more Peers because they believe that is what the rules of the political club they have belonged to all their lives requires. They can’t see that most of the country is already severely embarrassed by having an unelected second chamber, let alone begin to understand why we can’t accept a need to enlarge it further.
Perhaps someone will retort that the House of Lords at least contains people who have a wider experience of life. Really?
Europe laughs at us
Let’s have a look at David Cameron’s nomination as the next British European Union Commissioner, former Leader of the House of Lords Lord Hill. What does his CV say he has done? Oh, lobbyist, public relations consultant and special adviser. And we wonder why the rest of Europe is laughing when we argue that he should be given a major economic portfolio. He is a just another product of the Westminster bubble with no knowledge, experience or achievements beyond the narrow, unrepresentative world of politics.
There have been plenty of studies done recently that show how the House of Commons has become less representative over the decades and is now monopolised by the political class. It is this that lies at the heart of the disconnection between our political leaders and the rest of us and one of he key reasons why the phoney Nigel Farage appeals to so many people. We should all be worried but those best positioned to do something about it clearly demonstrate by their actions that they don’t have an an iota of understanding that they are the problem. They have sealed themselves into their bubble and stare contemptuously out on the rest of us.
I have just read a brief report from Eptica, a firm that offers what it calls customer engagement software, on how the insurance industry is shaping up to the challenge of engaging with its customers in the multi-channel age. It won’t surprise anyone to hear that the answer is “Not very well”.
Putting to one side the obvious fact that Eptica has a vested interest in arriving at this conclusion, the report does contain some useful comparisons with other service sectors and, crucially, focuses on key shortcomings.
Insurers have always be moaned that the dynamics of their business normally mean the only times they have an opportunity to engage with customers is at the inception or renewal of a policy and when they have a claim. The multi-channel, social media age is changing that but insurers are in danger of being left behind. This report shows just how far behind they are already.
The key is engagement. That is the glorious opportunity opening up to insurers in the digital age. Technology such as telematics is already creating a wealth of new interactions between insurers and their policyholders and that is just the beginning. Before the industry gets too excited about that it should ponder just how poor it is at using established technology such as websites and email to communicate: the findings in the Eptica report are sobering to say the least.
If insurers can’t communicate effectively by email when someone wants to buy a policy what hope have they got as the current generation of teenagers and university students starts to become customers? They view email as old hat, preferring the instant communication tools of social media. How many established insurers are ready to respond to their (potential) customers on Facebook and Twitter? Very, very few.
Move from the sales process to the claims process and the picture isn’t any better. Tracking something through a structured process is one of the easiest things to do on the web but how many insurers have fully embraced the potential of that technology? This report doesn’t deal with that but I think we all know the answer.
The most disappointing aspect of many insurers’ forays into social media is that they clearly do not understand its potential for genuine engagement with their customers. Some have got to the stage where they see it as a communication tool but overwhelmingly that means just broadcasting and pushing messages, not inviting engagement and conversation. Maybe they are frightened by that? Maybe they fear the regulators will take a dim view of genuinely communicating with individual customers on Twitter? The industry needs to get over all of those fears and embrace the opportunity. If it doesn’t then before long we will all be insuring with Google, Amazon, Facebook et al with the traditional insurance market pushed even further to the margins.
The Eptica report can be downloaded from its website http://www.eptica.com/insurance-multichannel-Study-2014.html.
The reports – started by The Sunday Times – suggesting that Lloyd’s of London might be on the move from its iconic Richard Rogers’ building on the corner of Lime Street and Leadenhall Street will provoke mixed feelings for many in the insurance industry.
Lloyd’s: iconic status benefits market
There are still many who have never come to terms with its modernity and would happily bid it goodbye but they are unlikely to be any more comfortable in the rumoured alternative of a move to a planned 36-story development further down Leadenhall Street. This has been provisionally labelled ‘Gotham City’ although from the mock-ups I can’t see why. Minster Court – home to the London Underwriting Centre – has long been nicknamed Gotham City and certainly looks a more likely haunt for Batman and his colleagues than the rather bland new glass and steel development.
When the current Lloyd’s building was being built I interviewed the then chief executive of the market, Alan Lord, who was very dismissive of the traditionalist critics of Rogers’ design. He wasn’t an outspoken man and kept his criticism of them rather muted, saying “Whatever else you might think about it, it makes every other building put up in the City since the war look about as imaginative as an igloo”.
Of course, building design in the City of London has got a little bolder in recent years but the Lloyd’s building still stands out as a real gem of modern architecture. In his understated way, Alan Lord made an important point that the present powers that be should be sensitive to.
By commissioning such a bold and original design, Lloyd’s made a brave statement about imagination and flair. Nearly 30 years later it still stands out and has become one of the landmarks of the City. That confers on Lloyd’s a status that helps it attract business from around the world. In marketing terms it is a godsend as it enables Lloyd’s to portray itself as the hub of the London insurance market, something its market share alone wouldn’t necessarily justify nowadays. By taking a few floors in a massive development it would throw that away.
So, when the bean counters look at the bills for running and maintaining the present building someone please tap them on the shoulder and ask them to consider what the value of occupying a separate, distinctive building is to the market, especially as it helps reinforce Lloyd’s image as the home of underwriting flair. They will screw up their faces and mutter about subjective, intangible marketing mumbo-jumbo but these things are important even though they are impossible to include on a balance sheet.
I recently put together a video for Lloyd’s on its royal connections and this underlined the status Lloyd’s has in the City of London. The video was to celebrate the visit of the Queen and Prince Philip to Lime Street to celebrate the 325th anniversary of the founding of the market in Edward Lloyd’s coffee house and it included many references to previous royal visits to the market, not least the Queen opening the present building in 1986. Can you imagine the monarch rushing to open a few floors for Lloyd’s in the suggested alternative? No.
There is so much Lloyd’s could throw away in an ill-conceived economy drive.
The aftershocks from the political earthquake of UKIP’s thumping victory in the European Parliament elections continue to rumble around British politics leaving Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg in an increasingly precarious position. I have thought for some time that at least one of the three main parties would ditch its current leader before the 2015 General Election and it looks increasingly likely that it will be Clegg that goes.
It is clear that he is, at best, a lame duck leader, at worst, a major electoral liability. With him at the helm the Liberal Democrats are heading for a major reverse at next year’s General Election. Just how big is a matter of increasing speculation but they are already reconciled to losing many seats, although they cling on to the hope that they may still hold enough seats to be potential coalition partners for either Tory or Labour in a close election.
Clegg’s fate will be decided by two factors. The first is the feedback from the increasingly restless grassroots of the party, many of whom for the first time in a generation find themselves without any elected representatives among their ranks following the wipe out in the local and Euro elections. The cries of old hands that they have been there before don’t quite wash. They may have seen local authorities without any Liberals or Liberal Democrats in the 1970s, 80s or early 90s but what they haven’t seen is many of those authorities having a significant third party presence in the form of UKIP. This is a game-changer in terms of local and regional media coverage as much as it is nationally (as we have seen). It will squeeze the Liberal Democrats out of the picture.
Once this ugly new reality sinks in the calls for a change at the top will rise to a crescendo. But will they herald a leadership challenge?
On this front there is better news for Clegg. Is there an alternative leader?
Vince Cable would be the obvious choice this close to an election as he is already well-known with an appeal that stretches beyond the hard core Liberal Democrat vote. However, he is damaged goods having been the minister charged with introducing the about-turn on tuition fees that so severely wounded the Lib Dems and which will haunt them throughout next year’s campaign. Now, his close ally Lord Oakeshot has been forced to resign from the party over his botched attempt to further destabilise Clegg.
After Cable, the only other possible contender seems to be Tim Farron, the party’s president but outside the ranks of the Lib Dem activists the reaction to him will be “Tim who?”.
This lack of a clear challenger could save Clegg, assuming that he wants to be saved.
There won’t be any movement this week as the domestic political focus will shift to the Parliamentary by-election in Newark, never a Lib Dem prospect but one where a slump from third to fifth behind the Greens could still stoke up the pressure on Clegg to go.
Cameron has more to lose in Newark
We know there will be a strong UKIP vote but such is the public mood after the European Parliament elections almost anything short of a UKIP win in Newark will be viewed as a minor triumph for Cameron and the Tories. A modest majority of a couple of thousand would certainly cement Cameron’s position as Tory leader for the 2015 General Election. A UKIP win could set alarm bells ringing among Tory MPs and spark calls for a change at the top.
The Tories are traditionally the most ruthless in dispensing with their leaders so Cameron won’t be sitting that comfortably this week and is certain to use the row over the prospect of former Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker becoming the next European Commission president to demonstrate his tough stance on all matters European. This is a godsend for him and may well be enough ensure the Tories see off the UKIP challenge in Newark.
Labour’s progress enough for Miliband
Sitting quietly on the sidelines is Labour leader Ed Miliband. The doubts about his leadership haven’t gone away but neither have they grown.
Labour enjoyed enough success in London and other major cities in the local elections to enable him to claim it has positive momentum as we head towards 2015. It falls short of allowing Labour bosses to do more than dream about forming a government with an overall majority but, at the same time, gives them an almost plausible hope that those dreams might become reality. They know Miliband isn’t totally convincing and is struggling to connect with the wider public but they also know that there isn’t an obvious alternative and no coherent narrative that is likely to engage the public more. They will happily watch the Lib Dems fall apart and target their supporters from 2010 in the run-up to next year’s vote.
As for Europe – it’s a mess
Meanwhile, the important business of trying to pick up the pieces in Europe following the elections looks like a massive challenge, both on the overall political level and also from the perspective of the UK’s important financial services sector.
Stalemate? Making the Parliament work will be a huge challenge
Two key UK MEPs stood down last month, Sharon Bowles of the Lib Dems and Peter Skinner, a Labour MEP. Both had been ugly influential in the key detailed debates about the rules and regulations that really matter to the insurance industry and wider financial services sector. The huge influx of UKIP MEPs will be a disaster as we know they won’t engage in those detailed debates. A recent post-election blog by the Association of British Insurers’ European head, Carol Hall, illustrates the extent of these concerns.
Much will hang on the appointment of the new president of the European Commission which is why that has become such a sensitive issue right across Europe. It seems to me that the real danger of appointing an EU insider is that he or she will be incapable of engaging with the public mood of disquiet about the direction the EU has taken in recent years thus alienating a large number of MEPs (not just UKIP) so much that the Parliament won’t be effective and may even grind to a halt.
In Europe, as in the UK, there is alot to play for politically in the coming weeks.
This time next week we will be sifting through the results of the local elections in England and Wales and waiting for the weekend counting of the votes in the European Parliament elections. It will be a nervous time for many, not least the party leaders.
None of the three main party leaders is 100% secure in their job and certain to lead their party into the General Election next year. These elections will be the last serious threat any of them face to their leadership, barring some unforeseen scandal or political calamity.
The council elections taking place next week last took place on the day of the General Election in 2010 and include all the seats in the London Boroughs and some other major cities so they will be a very useful comparison for spotting trends and shifts in support over the last four years. The European Parliament elections, of course, are national and will be seen by most political analysts as the more important set of results.
So, who will be the more nervous about these elections? Cameron, Miliband or Clegg?
Miliband under threat
I think the most vulnerable of the three is Ed Miliband. If Labour is to pose a serious challenge to emerge as the largest party at Westminster next year it must make significant gains in the local elections and top the poll in the European elections. Anything short of that will be a major setback and the trends in the opinion polls over the last week suggest that is the uncomfortable scenario Labour is facing. Detailed analysis of recent polls shows Labour trailing badly in terms of seats at the next General Election.
Forecast General Election Result
Con : 316
Lab : 276
LD : 30
Con largest party, but short of a majority by 10
If this trend is confirmed next week, Ed Miliband will be a very nervous man indeed. The rumblings about his ineffective leadership have already started and will get louder if Labour does not top the European poll next week. If the predictions of some polls that Labour will fall to third place and the Tories top the poll become reality then his leadership will come under enormous pressure. The one thing that might save him in those circumstances is the lack of an alternative, both in terms of a policy narrative and someone to champion it.
Cameron is comfortable – for now
Cameron looks more confident by the day. His MPs are happier with his leadership and more optimistic about their own chances of winning next year than they have been for a long time. He could actually afford for the Tories to come a narrow third next week and not be too concerned. Obviously, the Tories big worry has been the rise of UKIP but I think they have seen enough over the last few weeks to give them hope that they can contain the UKIP threat, the result of the Newark by-election on 5 June notwithstanding. A big UKIP vote there will start alarms bells ringing: a win will see some Tories reach for the panic button.
Clegg is a survivor
The hardest one to call is Nick Clegg. One minute he looks to be the master of his party despite the the tough times they are facing, the next he looks to have the skids under him. He has the aura of a survivor about him. Whether that will be the best thing for the Lib Dems is an open question.
Many Lib Dems will take comfort from forecasts that shows them with 30 seats at the next General Election with the Tories short of an overall majority as that would probably mean a continuation of the present Coalition. Others in the party will be concerned that it rules out the possibility of any deal with Labour and would confirm the continued rightward drift of the Liberal Democrats. The real danger of another Coalition with the Tories will be of a permanent split in the party with the gradual absorption of pro-Tory Liberal Democrats into the Conservatives as happened from the 1930s to the 1950s. That analysis is for another day, however.
Most Lib Dems seem braced for a poor result in the European Parliament elections. The question is just how poor does it have to be to threaten Clegg’s leadership? A complete wipe-out in terms of MEPs would be a disaster and might set him on course for the exit door with Tim Farron the most likely successor. Anything better than that and he will probably hang on.
Bursting the UKIP bubble
The other big question posed by the recent polls is: has the UKIP bubble burst? There are signs that the greater scrutiny of its policies and people surrounding the seemingly undentable Nigel Farage is beginning to take its toll. But they have taken up issues that matter to large numbers of voters and the tricky challenge facing the other parties is how do they respond to that without alienating their own traditional supporters? Failure to top the poll next week will be a serious blow to UKIP and give everyone else a little breathing space to consider that challenge.
Social media for me has always been a means to an end and not and end in itself. One of those ends has been to get in touch with a wider range of people and develop broader relationships with them. The best way of doing this in my experience is to meet them. That’s just what Mike Wise (@MikeWise07) has created tomorrow’s London Insurance Tweet-up for.
I for one will be there (before rushing off to watch Leyton Orient in the 2nd leg of the League One play-offs!) as I passionately believe in the power of social media to bring people together in the real as well as the virtual world.
Social media is not just about sitting behind a screen
People often complain that social media diminishes human contact and will, one day, turn us all into recluses, trapped in front of a computer screen. I have never bought into this depressing, slightly Orwellian view which seems most frequently to come from people who do not use social media or, if they do, do not fully understand its potential.
The truth is quite the opposite.
Right from the infancy of social networking I have found it to be a great tool for fostering face-to-face interaction beyond the limiting medium of the computer screen. I have rekindled old friendships, found useful business contacts and gained introductions to local and national networks that I would probably never have discovered otherwise.
I come from a generation that was raised in a world where online networks were little more than a science fiction pipe dream. It was all too easy to lose contact with people as you moved from school, to university and into the world of work, something today’s young people often find difficult to understand. Through Friends Reunited initially and now with Facebook, I have found people I regretted losing touch with and thought I might never find. Many of these online reconnections have produced some memorable meetings over the last few years, usually involving not a little alcohol and plenty of reminiscing.
In my business life, Twitter and LinkedIn have produced a wealth of virtual connections that go far beyond the old, ‘real’ networks that I was in. On many occasions I have found myself sharing a cup of coffee with one of these new virtual connections as we realised our common interests went well beyond what 140 characters can embrace.
For a journalist, social media is a wonderful resource as there is a wealth of valuable content made readily available and it is easy to see who and what is making the news. It is also easy to see who has got something interesting to say but, for me, it is always important to find out more about the person or company behind the social media profile so leveraging the potential of social media to get myself in front of or on the phone to those people is a vital dynamic of this exciting new world.
Social networking isn’t (just) for the nerds
People are social beings and online networking can only satisfy so much of that need. Don’t let anyone tell you that the big social networkers are some sort of nerd, a breed apart that doesn’t value human contact because that simply isn’t true.
I have seen this proved locally in Brentwood, Essex where the local tweet-up is now a monthly event and draws a fascinating cross-section of local people.
I hope tomorrow’s #LondonInsTweetup14 succeeds in doing the same for the insurance market. Give it a go even if you are not too sure about Twitter but want to explore what social media could do for you and your business it will be worth popping in.
It takes place between 5pm and 7pm, Tuesday 13 May at Corney & Barrow in Lime Street.
David Worsfold 