tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56126701572012898322024-02-06T21:04:07.761-08:00Election 2010The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-17956400565877189072010-06-07T01:40:00.000-07:002010-06-07T01:40:41.117-07:00New Politics: The Prime Minister Speaks“Britain can do better. Britain can be better than this.<br />
<br />
…<br />
<br />
Building the greatness of our nation through the greatness of its people.<br />
<br />
No more squandering the nation’s assets.<br />
<br />
No more sleaze ..<br />
<br />
No more lies.<br />
<br />
No more broken promises.”<br />
<br />
(Tony Blair, 1997)<br />
<br />
Prof Chris PiersonThe School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-34203929191107340152010-05-28T05:51:00.000-07:002010-05-28T05:51:20.228-07:00Same candidate elected, in two different constituencies, for two different partiesThe parliamentary constituencies of Feverford in Kent and Trough in Hertfordshire are not especially well known. But linking these two seats - one Conservative, one Labour - is one astonishing fact, somehow missed in all the acres of coverage about the election. They are represented, with the aid of a false beard, by the same person. <br />
<a name='more'></a>In fact, the election of James Stewart-Blundel (the Conservative) and Jim Blundel (Labour) occurred over 50 years ago and is (of course) a work of fiction. This most strange of political coalitions, two parties embodied in the same person, is contained in the 1953 novel Gentian Violet by Edward Hyams, best read as a commentary on the stifling atmosphere of 1950s consensus politics. For more on political fiction, including toilets and killer robots, try this article, in the<a href="http://www.totalpolitics.com/magazine_detail.php?id=900"> latest edition of Total Politics</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/philip.cowley">Professor Philip Cowley</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-71818198012364250782010-05-24T04:34:00.000-07:002010-05-24T04:36:10.554-07:00Why we need a stronger Electoral CommissionThe election may be over – Thirsk and Malton notwithstanding – but the fall out from the polling station queues continues. The Electoral Commission’s <a href="http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/99091/Interim-Report-Polling-Station-Queues-complete.pdf">Interim Report</a> came out last week. It makes for fascinating – and at times, revealing – reading.<br />
<a name='more'></a>Problems occurred at 27 polling stations, across 16 constituencies. The Commission estimate that they involved at least 1,200 people. As a proportion of the 40,000 polling stations in action during the day (or the 29.6 million people who voted), they are a tiny proportion, but some of the administrative cock-ups found are pretty dire.<br />
<br />
Most of the headlines have gone to the Report’s recommendation that the law should be changed to allow people to vote as long as they were in the queue by the time the poll closed. This is, relatively speaking, the easy bit to fix – although it poses some interesting questions about whether exit polls will be allowed to be published when people could still be queuing (a question, curiously, which the Report doesn’t address). <br />
<br />
But fixing the problem with the queues is dealing with symptom, not the cause. It’s when you look at the cause of the problem – why the queues occurred in the first place – that you get some of the more interesting findings. <a href="http://electionblog2010.blogspot.com/2010/05/localised-elections-localised.html">As previously pointed out</a> here, there’s no excuse caused by any ‘surge’ in turnout, because there was no surge – turnout was lower than at any election between 1922 and 1997. Instead, as the Report shows, some of the planning by (Acting) Returning Officers was quite astonishingly incompetent. As the Commission noted, ‘the common factors were inadequate planning processes and systems – in particular unrealistic, inappropriate or unreliable assumptions; and inadequate risk management and contingency planning (p.25). Some (A)ROs ignored guidelines about the correct ratio of population to polling stations. <br />
<br />
In one of the worst cases, in Sheffield, the St John’s Ranmoor polling station had some 4,469 electors (excluding postal voters); the Electoral Commission recommends 2,500 as a maximum. Others didn’t allow anywhere near enough staff –allocating just one Presiding Officer and Poll Clerk to each polling station regardless of the size of the population being serviced (again, despite the Commission’s advice being that the more densely populated need more staff). <br />
<br />
Most jaw-droppingly of all, some councils – the Electoral Commission spares their blushes by not naming them – based their assumptions of turnout on the levels seen in ‘local government elections since 2006’. This is just Grade A Incompetence. Whoever was responsible should never be allowed near an election – of any sort – ever again. <br />
<br />
The Commission had reminded councils that parliamentary elections see higher levels of turnout than do local elections, although, frankly, anyone who needs reminding of this is too stupid to be allowed to run a party in a brewery, yet alone an election. The Commission’s report dryly notes that ‘plans were not always based on robust, reasonable assumptions about the possible levels of turnout’ (p. 27). That’s putting it mildly.<br />
<br />
The Electoral Commission can rightly argue that it both advised of the correct procedures and indeed that it proposed a change in the law, to allow late-voters, back in 2004. The trouble is that the Electoral Commission always reminds me of that quote of Baldwin’s about the press: ‘power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the age’. <br />
<br />
Except the Electoral Commission suffers from the opposite problem: responsibility without power. It’s more a eunuch than a harlot. It can advise, as it did, but it has no power to enforce, and (A)ROs can simply ignore it, as some of them clearly did. Yet when things go wrong – as here – it is the Chair of the Commission, Jenny Watson, who gets hauled round the TV studios, to be shouted at. The answer – contrary to all those who <a href="http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/05/action-point-1-sack-chairwoman-of.html">called for her head</a>, or (even worse) for the Commission to be scrapped – lies in a stronger Electoral Commission, one with the power to enforce its advice, and to take direct control of electoral administration in councils which are too incompetent to deliver the basics required by a modern democracy. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/philip.cowley">Professor Philip Cowley</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-28305403257465758582010-05-20T04:27:00.000-07:002010-05-20T11:39:24.034-07:00The next Great Reform Act? Pull the other one, Nick.<strong></strong>Nick Clegg has called the <a href="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/409014/new-politics-final1.pdf">new government’s measures to reform politics</a> ‘the most significant programme of empowerment by a British government since the great reforms of the 19th Century’, indeed since the Great Reform Act of 1832. <br />
<blockquote><strong>"...for someone who says he has embraced a new way of doing politics Clegg’s grand rhetoric bears all the hallmarks of the spin and over-selling which the previous Labour administration was said to be guilty of..."</strong></blockquote><br />
<a name='more'></a>The parallels with 1832 are a bit unfortunate. For many who passed the Reform Act gave middle class men the vote so that working class men need not be enfranchised. It brought in new groups of property owners into a system that remained otherwise unreformed. If it was the first step towards one-person-one-vote it was a journey that took over a hundred years to complete, one that at every stage was bitterly contested. <br />
<br />
Many will welcome most of Clegg’s proposals. The repeal of various measures said to infringe liberty – and the rejection of ID cards – will raise a cheer, for now. These are however second order issues – for by invoking 1832 Clegg implies that his reforms will do more than alter existing laws but will actually redistribute power, from Westminster politicians to the people.<br />
<br />
While his speech was called the ‘New Politics’ his actual programme builds on the incremental reforms started by New Labour. It is disingenuous of him to not accept this. The record of the last government was certainly mixed but it does include the devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the creation of the London Assembly. <br />
<br />
Labour also gave the Commons more powers over the executive. Moreover had Gordon Brown been re-elected he would have introduced the final stage of Lords reform and held a referendum on the Alterative Vote, significant elements in Clegg’s own programme.<br />
<br />
The extent to which AV – surely meant to be the jewel in the crown of these proposals - marks any real shift in power is highly debatable. Clegg’s embrace of AV mark a significant step back for most advocates of electoral reform: quite how it will alters the people’s relationship with their elected representative is open to question. What has happened to the LibDem’s long-standing commitment to more radical electoral change?<br />
<br />
Some might think that the real novelty in what amounts to a mixed bag of incremental reforms is that the leadership of the Conservative party supports them. For a party that opposed devolution and Lords reform surely this marks a real change of attitude? Maybe. But the Conservatives have embraced reform when they felt it could not be resisted or might exploited for party advantage. Hence the 1867 Reform Act that gave votes to skilled working men and the 1928 Reform Act that gave votes to women on the same basis as men. <br />
<br />
So, Clegg has not unveiled a new Great Reform Act. Moreover, for someone who says he has embraced a new way of doing politics Clegg’s grand rhetoric bears all the hallmarks of the spin and over-selling which the previous Labour administration was said to be guilty of – by its Conservative and LibDem opponents.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/steven.fielding">Professor Steven Fielding</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-21740595174397753862010-05-20T01:45:00.000-07:002010-05-20T01:47:34.307-07:00The new Baldwin?<blockquote>"I for one think that the past is as much of a guide to the future as our current neophilia. On that basis, LibDems beware!"</blockquote>Few Liberal Democrats have put their coalition with the Conservatives into historical perspective. This is partly due to all politicians’ intoxication with the supposed novelty of any situation these days, something they share with most of their fellow citizens. How many times did Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg assert their embrace of a ‘new politics’?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>There might also be another reason. For as <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/27/nick-clegg-a-new-politics">Charles Kennedy</a>, one of the leading opponents of the deal has pointed out, the precedents are, for the LibDems, pretty bad.<br />
<br />
When the Liberals split over Home Rule in 1886 the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Unionist_Party">Liberal Unionists</a> were soon assimilated within Conservative ranks, helping to ensure that the latter’s grip on power lasted until 1906. Liberal Unionists however continued to pretend – to themselves as much as anybody else - to be members of a separate organisation until they formally gave up the ghost in 1912. <br />
<br />
The formation of the National Government in 1931 provoked another split in Liberal ranks with the resulting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberal_Party_(UK)">Liberal National Party</a> helping the Conservatives retain office for the rest of the 1930s. After 1945 however the party’s significance declined to being little more than an annex of Conservatism, and it died an unlamented death in 1968. <br />
<br />
Of course the present coalition does not follow nor does it look like precipitating a split within LibDem ranks. Even Kennedy has not yet proposed forming a splinter group. It is however early days. <br />
<br />
But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the beneficiary of these coalitions has always been the senior partner, then as now, the Conservatives. <br />
<br />
Within the First Past The Post system both Labour and the Conservatives have long tried to annex the Liberal vote – rather than the Liberal party – to clear their path to a Commons majority. Until Margaret Thatcher, the overlap between Liberals and Conservatives was however always the greater. <br />
<br />
The SDP-Liberal merger also changed the nature of the centre party, making it more inclined to collectivist solutions. From the late 1980s the notion of a ‘progressive coalition’ of Lib-Lab forces became much more potent, an idea successfully mined by Tony Blair. <br />
<br />
The current coalition, then, marks the return to an established pattern – much to the discomfort of those LibDems, like Kennedy but also Simon Hughes, schooled in 1980s politics. In contrast, Nick Clegg – whether he was or was not <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jonathanisaby/3669211/Nick_Cleggs_Conservative_credentials/">a Conservative at Cambridge</a> – was a member of the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3621340.stm">Orange Book group</a> that in 2004 stressed the importance of the free market to liberalism. <br />
<br />
This was meant as a criticism of Kennedy’s leadership, which saw the LibDems stand to the left of New Labour on many issues. The group was however also concerned that under David Cameron a ‘decontaminated’ Conservative party would reclaim voters lost in the 1980s. Stressing the market (along with getting rid of Kennedy) was their way of protecting the party from that possibility. Ideologically therefore the LidDems have never been closer to the Conservatives: it wasn’t just Commons arithmetic that prepared the ground for this coalition. <br />
<br />
But what of the Conservatives? As soon as he became leader David Cameron described himself as a<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/dec/17/uk.conservatives"> ‘liberal Conservative’</a> and called on LibDem voters and MPs to join his party. Cameron’s often reiterated description of himself as a <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/files/File/David_Cameron_Making_progressive_conservatism_a_reality.pdf">‘progressive Conservative’</a> was however aimed at voters more than leaders – he wanted to form his own government not to create a coalition. <br />
<br />
The ease with which Cameron embraced the prospect of coalition after the election suggests he saw the strategic possibilities inherent to it, showing a grasp the wily Stanley Baldwin would have appreciated. Few will now remember Baldwin and even the experts that do rank him as a <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/files/File/David_Cameron_Making_progressive_conservatism_a_reality.pdf">mediocre Prime Minister</a>. <br />
<br />
Baldwin it was however who in the interwar decades encouraged many Liberal voters and leaders to become comfortable with voting, joining or collaborating with his Conservative party. While this infuriated many of Baldwin’s back benchers who cavilled at his moderation it was the basis for a strategy which succeeded in keeping Labour on the political margins. <br />
<br />
Is the coalition a ‘new politics’? Have the tribal instincts of the Conservatives and LibDems been put aside in favour of the ‘national interest’ and a novel pluralistic political leadership? Believe that if you want to. I for one think that the past is as much of a guide to the future as our current neophilia. On that basis, LibDems beware! <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/steven.fielding">Professor Steven Fielding</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-84908176882330955582010-05-19T02:54:00.000-07:002010-05-19T03:02:55.824-07:00And the election should be called....<blockquote><strong>"The election battle will be succeeded by the battle of the election books..."</strong></blockquote>Philip Cowley has asked us <a href="http://electionblog2010.blogspot.com/2010/05/but-what-would-you-call-it.html">what we would call the last election?</a> I think we should name it the Don’t Know Election. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Ipsos MORI have just produced <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/News/General_Election_2010-An_Overview.PDF">an overview</a> of the election. One of the most staggering findings is the extent to which prior to the campaign people did not know which party had the best policies. Some of this is understandable: generally people were more likely to not have an opinion if they thought an issue unimportant. <br />
<br />
Even so, giving the rankings of importance in brackets, it is still striking how little people knew about the parties’ policies: 58 per cent on climate change (12th); 46 per cent on immigration (4th) as well as defence (16th); 40 per cent on benefits (8th); 37 per cent on crime (7th) as well as unemployment (6th); 36 per cent on the economy (1st); and 34 per cent on health (2nd). <br />
<br />
Of course some of the blame should be attached to the parties – they were obviously not communicating well (and on immigration that might have been deliberate) but I suspect a lot of people were not listening. <br />
<br />
Widespread ignorance of the issues is nothing new. In that by-gone and probably mythical age when people were said to vote on class grounds they did not decide which party to support on policy grounds but out of inbred loyalty. This meant that sometimes solid Labour voters were unknowing Conservatives and vice versa. <br />
<br />
Now the short cut people use is their assessment of the party leader – which is why the leaders’ debates was such a significant innovation, and played such a crucial role in the campaign. It is personality as much as policy that now influences people – another finding from the Ipsos MORI overview – if only because it’s easier to make those kind of judgements. <br />
<br />
However, that’s just one view. Others will emerge over the coming months as academics come to terms with the campaign, its very peculiar course and idiosyncratic outcome. The election battle will be succeeded by the battle of the election books. <br />
<br />
Philip Cowley is associated with one, the so-called <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-General-Election-2010/dp/0230521908">Nuffield study </a>(even if neither of the authors is now based at Nuffield). I am associated with another, a bit of a latecomer into the field, as while Nuffield is a series that goes back to 1945 the <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Labours-Landslide-1997-General-Election/dp/0719051592">Geddes and Tonge</a> series started in 1997 (although that now does seem a long way away). <br />
<br />
Those contributing to this book – to be published in Parliamentary Affairs in October and by Oxford University Press as a book soon after - will be gathering to discuss the election at a workshop hosted by the Centre for British Politics at Nottingham on June 4th. Some of the leading experts in the field will be there. If you would like to attend more <a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cbp/centre-activities/geworkshop.aspx">details are available</a>. <br />
<br />
Like voting, it’s free.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/steven.fielding">Professor Steven Fielding</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-40067815025526705762010-05-18T04:36:00.000-07:002010-05-18T04:36:47.855-07:00How bad was the election...really?<strong>"There is a saying in the Philippines that no one loses in elections, there are only winners and those that are cheated. Arguably the cheating has simply entered the digital age..."</strong><br />
<br />
How much effort did you put into voting? Did you even vote? Perhaps you strolled down to your polling station in your lunch hour, marked your X and left. It is unlikely you were too inconvenienced. In this respect at least UK democracy does not demand too much of us.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>On 10 May this year, four days after the UK elections, the Philippines held their <a href="http://ph.politicalarena.com/">presidential elections</a>. For the first time an <a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/275721">automated system</a> was used that aimed to speed up the election process (it had taken six weeks to announce Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the winning Presidential candidate in 2004) and limit corruption and cheating in the voting process. <br />
<br />
Filipinos were required to mark not one X but over 170 as they voted for a range of national government and local mayoral seats. As a member of the <a href="http://piom2010.wordpress.com/">International People’s Observer Mission </a>(in the Philippines, a broad based non-partisan group of 87 foreigners and Filipino hosts, I had a bird’s eye view of the election process on the ground.<br />
<br />
Would you have waited up to 8 hours in temperatures averaging 37 degrees to vote? Would you have queued in the direct sun? That this is what <a href="http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100514-269837/People-heroes-in-poll-success-say-foreign-observers">many Filipinos did</a>. <br />
<br />
The new automated system was not fit for the purpose in terms of volume of voters, up to 1000 per PCOs (precinct count optical scan) machine, and the whole system backed up. In some voting precincts (schools) voters were waiting until midnight to vote, despite the fact that voting was meant to finish at 6.00pm. The 6.00pm sunset timing is important, as it is much easier to buy votes, harass people and generally wage a campaign of dirty tricks after dark.<br />
<br />
Can you imagine sauntering down to your polling station and finding yourself in the <a href="http://ph.politicalarena.com/presidential-elections/news/old-style-violence-stays-despite-automation">middle of a shoot out</a>? That is exactly what happened to the election monitors in Lanao del Sur in Mindanao. Would you ‘vote through the window’ if the price was right? That is, pick up your ballot paper, hand it out of the polling station window for someone else to fill in as they saw fit and then submit your votes? <br />
<br />
One man we saw was in tears because of this, caught between hunger and integrity, he sold his vote. He said he felt ‘cursed’. However the long queues and the resolution to wait out the intolerable conditions are testament to the Filipinos commitment to the democratic process and civic duty. <br />
<br />
Smartmatic, the company, who makes the PCOs machines issued full page self-congratulatory advertisements in the national press post election. They ignored the brown outs, papers jams, queues and technical failures that marred the election process. Smartmatic, was actually not so smart. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile despite the seeming landslide presidential victory of <a href="http://www.noynoy.ph/v3/index.php">Noynoy Aquino</a> (son of martyr father Ninoy whose assassination in 1983 heralded the eventual ousting of dictator Marcos and revered President mother Cory), various interest groups are now preparing to contest the election results on the based of electronic cheating or what is now being called ‘<a href="http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100516-270244/Estrada-focuses-on-hocus-PCOS">Hocus PCOs</a>’.<br />
<br />
There is a saying in the Philippines that no one loses in elections, there are only winners and those that are cheated. Arguably the cheating has simply entered the digital age. This story is set to run and run. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/pauline.eadie">Dr Pauline Eadie</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-17309804746284421122010-05-17T04:15:00.000-07:002010-05-19T02:58:32.408-07:00But what would you call it?<strong></strong><br />
<blockquote><strong>"...if you were going to name the 2010 election, what would you call it?"</strong></blockquote><br />
The opening book in the ‘Nuffield’ election series – The British General Election of 1945 – lists a series of ‘named’ elections: 1874, when the Liberals went down in a flood of gin and beer; the Midlothian election of 1880; the Khaki election of 1900; the Chinese Slavery election of 1906; the People's Budget election of 1910; the 'Hang the Kaiser' election of 1918; and the 1924 ‘Zinovieff letter’ election.<br />
<a name='more'></a>It’s noticeable that since then, it’s difficult to think of similarly ‘named’ elections. February 1974 is sometimes called the Who Governs Britain? election, but that’s about it. <br />
<br />
Why is this? Re-reading the 1945 study (whilst <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-General-Election-2010/dp/0230521908">preparing the 2010 study</a>), I was struck by the fact that even then, the study’s authors, R. B. McCallum and Alison Readman, were sceptical that in reality these issues had ever been so dominant. They point out that in 1945, the key issue of the election was housing – yet no one will know it as the housing election.<br />
<br />
My theory (and that’s all it is) is that the reason we don’t name elections in the way we used to is largely because we now know so much more about what how the public vote, what drives them (or not), and we know that their motivations are usually so mixed, and complex, if not <a href="http://electionblog2010.blogspot.com/2010/05/looking-both-ways-at-once.html">often contradictory</a>, that it’s ludicrous to think that any one thing decides an election. <br />
<br />
Take 2005, for example. That could easily be labelled as the ‘Iraq election’, given the extent to which national debate focussed on the consequences (and justifications) of the 2003 war. But we know that for voters Iraq came relatively low down the list of concerns. <br />
<br />
Similarly, this one could have been called the ‘Expenses Election’, although again we know that expenses was relatively low on voters concerns, and – a handful of seats aside – it’s difficult to see much evidence that expenses mattered. Even with the 1983 contest, which could easily be known as the ‘Falklands Election’, there is plenty of good evidence which argues that the Falklands war was much less significant than people think. <br />
<br />
But if you were going to name the 2010 election, what would you call it?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/philip.cowley">Professor Philip Cowley</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-48246390832632439032010-05-16T03:48:00.000-07:002010-05-16T03:51:21.245-07:00Forget the 55% rule. This is what will really limit Parliament<blockquote><strong>"...the routine defeats of the government by the upper House, and the subsequent negotiation and compromise between the two – could still be seriously limited...</strong><strong>"</strong></blockquote><br />
Leave aside for now the <a href="http://electionblog2010.blogspot.com/2010/05/whats-5-between-friends.html">fuss about the 55% rule</a> and its impact on parliament. For all the talk about preventing votes of no confidence from dissolving parliament, defeats on votes of confidence are already extremely rare. The truth is that most <a href="http://www.totalpolitics.com/magazine_detail.php?id=457">votes of confidence</a> are dull affairs, in which all the MPs of each party simply rally to the flag, and the government survives. <br />
<a name='more'></a>There are two other aspects of the <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Conservative_Liberal_Democrat_coalition_agreements&pPK=2697bcdc-7483-47a7-a517-7778979458ff">coalition agreement</a> that will have much more impact on Parliament. The first is that the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8545000/8545970.stm">‘Wright Committee’</a> recommendations will be implemented. As the coalition agreement notes: <br />
<blockquote>The parties will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of programmed business and including government business within its scope by the third year of the Parliament.</blockquote><br />
<br />
These reforms had been overwhelmingly voted through the last Commons, but had then been lost in the ‘wash up’ at the end of the parliament. Most advocates of a stronger House of Commons will raise a glass to the Wright reforms.<br />
<br />
There is, however, one serious countervailing factor – which is the coalition itself. One piece of conventional wisdom in the run up to the election was the belief that a situation in which no party has a majority helps strengthen parliament, because it makes the outcome of votes less certain and thus empowers individual MPs. As I said in the Hansard Society’s <a href="http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/publications/archive/2008/03/11/new-hansard-society-publication-launched.aspx">prescient report</a> into this back in 2008, this is probably true of a situation in which there is a minority administration. It is, however, much less certain once there is a post-election coalition deal. <br />
<br />
A coalition deal will restrain rather than enhance the power of parliament for two reasons. First, because it may make those parties involved in the coalition place an even greater emphasis on unity: there is little to be gained from a coalition deal if the party leaderships fail to deliver their supporters in important divisions. It may be difficult to deliver such unity but the pressure for it will increase nonetheless. <br />
<br />
But the second – and probably more important – reason why a coalition might limit parliamentary influence is because it will dramatically reduce the influence exercised by the House of Lords. Since reform in 1999, the House of Lords has become an increasingly assertive check on the executive, and one which has defeated the Government on more than 400 occasions. The 1999 House of Lords Act created what is effectively a permanently hung second chamber. In theory, there are lots of winning coalitions in the Lords, but in practice, as <a href="http://www.palgrave-journals.com/bp/journal/v2/n3/abs/4200064a.html">Meg Russell and Maria Scaria</a> showed in the journal British Politics, it was the Liberal Democrats who were the key swing voters, deciding whether a policy passes or falls. <br />
<br />
A coalition thus delivers simultaneous success in the lower chamber and in the upper chamber. At a stroke, the ability of the Lords to cause governments all sorts of difficulties is largely removed. Legislation might well therefore navigate Parliament much easier under a coalition government than under a situation in which one party has a majority in the Commons but faced a hung chamber in the Lords. <br />
<br />
Even here there are imponderables. Perhaps under such a scenario the crossbench peers (who have always punched below their weight in terms of voting) will become more important, stepping into the political vacuum. It may also be even harder for the coalition partners to deliver unity in the Lords, where the sanctions for those who defy the whip are practically non-existent, in which case the coalition may not be as dominant in practice as it appears on paper. <br />
<br />
But nonetheless, one of the commonplace events of the last decade – the routine defeats of the government by the upper House, and the subsequent negotiation and compromise between the two – could still be seriously limited.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/philip.cowley">Professor Philip Cowley</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-47448670476284427852010-05-15T04:33:00.000-07:002010-05-15T04:33:05.721-07:00What’s happening to the BNP?<blockquote><strong>"It’s tempting to write the BNP off...but...one of Griffin's saving graces will be the distinct lack of leadership calibre among potential would-be-successors..."</strong></blockquote><br />
Aside from a bigoted woman in Rochdale and the rise of Nick Clegg, one of the stories of the 2010 campaign was the prospect of a breakthrough by the BNP. This was especially true in outer-east London, where all eyes focused on the ‘Battle of Barking’ between Labour incumbent Margaret Hodge and BNP leader Nick Griffin. Eyes also focused on local elections, where the BNP looked poised to take control of Barking and Dagenham council.<br />
<a name='more'></a>As I predicted in an <a href="http://electionblog2010.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-this-election-means-for-far-right.html">earlier blog</a>, the performance was a disappointing one. When all votes had been counted Griffin was pushed into third while his party lost every one of their seats on the local council. The BNP went from being tipped to take over the borough to being kicked out in one night. Their activists went from anticipating control over a £200 million budget to being, in the words of Griffin, “heartbroken”. What happened?<br />
<br />
Before answering the question a reframing exercise is needed. Despite media claims which have followed the election, the core BNP vote did not collapse. The party more than doubled their number of votes, saved more than 60 deposits and their average vote in seats contested stood at around 3.8 per cent, down only 0.5 per cent on the result in 2005 despite standing more than three times as many candidates. The party also polled well in several seats where there was little or no campaigning on the ground. Even in Barking, Griffin attracted more BNP voters than in 2005 and, in fact, received more votes than any BNP candidate in the party’s history.<br />
<br />
These votes, however, were swamped by a resurgent Labour vote and a boost of 11 per cent in turnout. This turnout enabled Hodge to increase her majority in a contest which saw almost 100 Labour MPs lose their seats. The mobilization of the Labour and anti-fascist votes owed much to the activities of the Hope Not Hate campaigners in and around Barking. <br />
<br />
Reflecting the changing nature of anti-fascist opposition, these campaigners even recruited the help of an Obama strategist and employed innovative techniques to mobilize the anti-BNP vote. The campaign was also geared around Margaret Hodge, who took the campaign and Griffin’s challenge incredibly seriously and personally. In the face of this approach, the BNP’s pavement politics didn’t have a chance. <br />
<br />
Yet there were internal problems too. In the weeks leading up to polling day, a court had ruled that the party’s membership policy remained discriminatory, a leading activist allegedly threatened to kill Griffin and the party became engaged in what many activists saw as an unnecessary dispute with Marmite (an early version of the BNP broadcast had featured a Marmite logo and, unsurprisingly, Marmite took legal action). Nor did footage of a BNP organizer brawling in the street with Asian youths improve prospects. <br />
<br />
These factors combined to stifle the breakthrough. After returning from the count in Barking, Griffin perhaps took his mind back to 1979. The parallels between the performance of the BNP in 2010 and the National Front (NF) in ’79 are striking. Like the NF, Griffin ignored calls for a more targeted approach and went ‘all out’ by fielding 338 candidates, the largest number in the history of the extreme right. And like the NF, when this strategy failed to deliver the party descended into their favourite pastime: infighting.<br />
<br />
This infighting has since escalated to the point of rival activists setting up their own website to call for far-ranging changes inside the party. Some of these activists are very influential and respected voices. The changes they propose are organizational rather than ideological: greater financial competence and transparency are the main ones. <br />
<br />
But they also provide a striking insight into the political incompetence which has been at work inside the BNP. For instance, some claim that over the past year the BNP has distributed in the region of 30 million leaflets which feature a mobile phone number that was no longer in use. <br />
<br />
This infighting will head in one of two directions. Either the activists coalescing under the banner of greater professionalism and financial transparency will exit and establish their own organization. Or, Griffin will hang on and be forced to make significant internal changes to acquiesce their concerns, most likely by opening up party accounts or distancing himself from a businessman in Belfast who has grown increasingly influential within the party. <br />
<br />
It’s tempting to write the BNP off. But I said this week in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/14/general-election-2010-fall-bnp">The Guardian</a>, one of Griffin’s saving graces will be the distinct lack of leadership calibre among potential would-be-successors. Some have too much baggage; others have sat in a council chamber but flounder in the face of media scrutiny. Griffin might have handled Question Time badly, but he’s easily the best of a bad bunch. He’s also keenly aware of the mistakes made in the 1970s, and his leadership is based on a party constitution which makes it virtually impossible for him to be removed. Success or significant internal reform will need to be delivered, and delivered promptly if the party is to endure in their current form. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.matthewgoodwin.co.uk/">Matthew Goodwin</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-22312976056529953152010-05-14T01:35:00.000-07:002010-05-15T05:29:42.813-07:00What’s 5% between friends?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGTez_PXOYq8xNP4YsZVzlS0EnjW17TfXrqjYPJZ9gstHpbHCzh27kbj8HLRV_vHht4vt1mx2mTdBBpsKZZxh7Vr0GZDKwb4lpptAJGJLK92YYXTYEKwQRhXT8KVEU7xub755jRousKw0/s1600/diary.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGTez_PXOYq8xNP4YsZVzlS0EnjW17TfXrqjYPJZ9gstHpbHCzh27kbj8HLRV_vHht4vt1mx2mTdBBpsKZZxh7Vr0GZDKwb4lpptAJGJLK92YYXTYEKwQRhXT8KVEU7xub755jRousKw0/s400/diary.jpg" width="400" wt="true" /></a></div><br />
One of the most striking statements of the last few days was William Hague’s claim that ‘the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May, 2015’. That is, by the way, 7 May. One for the diary, maybe? And it’s all because of this clause in the <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Conservative_Liberal_Democrat_coalition_agreements&pPK=2697bcdc-7483-47a7-a517-7778979458ff">coalition agreement</a>:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.<br />
<br />
This has provoked a series of complaints, about being its supposedly undemocratic nature. It would, for example, stop a government defeated by one vote on a vote of confidence, as Callaghan was in 1979, from having to go to the country. <br />
<br />
Although it’s not very clear from the coalition agreement, what the scheme is doing is decoupling two concepts: ‘confidence’ and ‘dissolution’. So a government that lost a vote of confidence (like Callaghan’s) would still be expected to resign. But, unlike at present, that would not trigger an (almost) automatic general election. Instead an alternative governing majority would be sought, perhaps under a new Prime Minister, perhaps under a new arrangement of parties. If no alternative could be found, then parties would come together to trigger the 55% dissolution requirement and an election would be held.<br />
<br />
One problem that many of those arguing against this have is that fixed term parliaments were a manifesto pledge for both Labour and the Liberal Democrats (though not the Conservatives). And here’s the problem: if you have fixed term parliaments, then you need a mechanism of some sort that prevents the governing party ending them at will. Else, how do you simply stop the government deliberately losing a vote of confidence, and triggering an election, whenever it likes? A fixed term parliament, without some mechanism to stop that sort of manoeuvring, isn’t fixed at all. <br />
<br />
But even if you accept that the ideas are worth considering, there are still all sorts of interesting questions: <br />
<br />
1. Why 5 years? Most recent UK Parliaments have lasted for four years. Moreover, Scottish, Welsh and London elections are on a four-year cycles, establishing Westminster on a four-year cycle as well – and starting now - would also ensure that they didn’t occur on the same days. <br />
<br />
2. Why 55%? If the aim is to stop a party collapsing its own government, then 55% seems very low. Whilst it would work in this particular parliament, in most recent elections (including 1983, 1987, 1997, and 2001) the government would have had enough MPs to trigger the 55% hurdle on their own. The Scottish Parliament, which has a similar scheme, has a 66% hurdle, and that would be more significant. <br />
<br />
3. How is this to be embedded? It is not clear what this ‘binding’ resolution is. Westminster doesn’t have binding resolutions, or laws. What is to stop a government – with a majority, but not 55% - simply repealing the bill establishing fixed parliaments, and then triggering an election? It might look a bit shifty, but it could always be justified in the ‘good of the country’ or something similar. <br />
<br />
4. Did anyone consult the Queen about this, since formally dissolution is in the hands of the Monarch? <br />
<br />
5. And what effect will this have on party discipline? Before, governments always had recourse to making an issue a vote of confidence, which would make all but the most recalcitrant MPs come back into line, for fear of triggering an election. Under the proposed scheme, losing a vote of confidence might bring down the administration, but as long as it could muster 55% it wouldn’t need to go to the country. <br />
<br />
These are interesting times to be studying the constitution; they might also be interesting times to be studying party discipline.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/philip.cowley">Professor Philip Cowley</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-15707157866250125532010-05-12T01:59:00.000-07:002010-05-12T01:59:57.793-07:00An end to New Labour...<blockquote><strong>"</strong><strong>Would either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown want to claim the paternity of the Lib-Con coalition..."</strong></blockquote>The New Labour government is now, finally, at an end. After thirteen years, it passes into history – and in a strangely anti-climactic way. There was no sturm und drang, no (with the greatest of respect to Jacqui Smith) cathartic Portillo moment for its opponents on election night, no flag waving on Downing Street for the incoming government, although I am sure plenty of Bolly will be spilt in the pubs and clubs of Notting Hill over the next few days. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>One reason for this lack of drama is that the end has been so long in coming. Since 2008 few could have had any expectation that Gordon Brown would win a fourth victory for his party. How he must be regretting not holding that much-trailed election in the autumn of 2007. The other reason is that – apart from the brief flurry of hope yesterday – since the results were confirmed on May 7th there was really only one game in town, and it wasn’t one to which New Labour was invited to play. And finally, there is the context for the election itself – continuing financial instability and the generally agreed need to cut government spending on an unprecedented scale. Things can only get better? Not until they get very much worse. <br />
<br />
When Tony Blair became Labour leader in 1994 he talked of making sure the twenty-first century would be the ‘progressive century’ in the same way as the twentieth century had been the ‘Conservative century’ given how long that party held national office. The basis for this progressive century was to be a new relationship between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. For division between these two parties Blair – following <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Marquand">David Marquand</a> and many others – claimed had allowed the Right to rule. <br />
<br />
For a time Blair brought the two parties together – and even offered Paddy Ashdown a place in his Cabinet and created a Cabinet sub-committee on which Labour ministers and leading Liberals discussed policy. There was also, most crucially, Lord Jenkins’ <a href="http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/contents.htm">Independent Commission on the Voting System</a>, which proposed AV plus – a half way house between Proportional Representation and the Alternative Vote. Blair however backed off from putting this to a referendum as he had promised, in part because his Cabinet – where Gordon Brown had a very loud voice – rejected the need for electoral reform. At the time Labour had a majority of 179 and was confident of at least two more election victories under the old system. <br />
<br />
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but there is an irony, then, in the events of the last few days. New Labour leaves office with the Liberals in coalition with the Conservatives, a party now led by a man who has described himself as ‘progressive’ and has said his government will be, above all things, ‘fair’. <br />
<br />
Margaret Thatcher has claimed that one of her greatest achievements was – by destroying socialism - the creation of New Labour. As Thatcher also said on the verge of leaving Downing Street for the last time as Prime Minister: ‘It’s a funny old world’. Would either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown want to claim the paternity of the Lib-Con coalition? Probably not; not just yet anyway. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/steven.fielding">Professor Steven Fielding</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-53044431633511947012010-05-11T10:08:00.000-07:002010-05-11T10:17:22.351-07:00The Alternative Vote, why bother?The campaign for and the outcome of the General Election has put electoral reform firmly on the political agenda. Somewhat surprisingly the alternative vote (AV) has become the most discussed option for replacing the current first-past-the-post system (FPTP), embraced by Labour, and even allowed by the Conservatives to be voted upon in a referendum. This potential acceptance by the two major parties is understandable, as AV is for them the safest option, and least likely to break their joint hegemony over British politics. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
When thinking about the different ways in which elections can be organised, the first question to be answered is whether one wants each constituency electing only a single MP, or multi-member constituencies. <br />
<br />
Elections for single member constituencies can be organised in three fashions: first-past-the-post, alternative vote, and approval voting. But irrespective of which of these is used, all single member constituency systems are prone to disproportional outcomes, which means that the shares of votes and shares of seats can diverge widely. <br />
<br />
AV thus does not solve the problem of dis-proportionality that lays at the root of many demands for electoral reform. It may even turn out less proportional than FPTP. In other words, it is also likely to yield parliaments where a vote share of only 35% yields 55% of the seats (as was the case for Labour in the previous parliament). because Labour and the Conservatives are most likely to be in a position to benefit from this, it is quite understandable that they favour AV if the call for electoral reform cannot be stifled any more. <br />
<br />
What is ‘solved’ by AV is a ‘problem’ that hardly anyone cared about, namely that an individual MP be elected with fewer than 50% of the votes in his/her constituency. AV changes this by asking voters to rank their preferences for the candidates. If no candidate has an absolute majority of first preferences, then the one with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated, and his/her votes are allocated to the other candidates on the basis of the 2nd preferences on those ballots. Applying this, if necessary repeatedly, will guarantee that the eventual winner will have been supported by a majority in the constituency (a ‘majority’ that then consists of a mixture of 1st preferences, plus added 2nd preferences, possibly 3rd preferences, and so on). But this does not do anything to diminish the discrepancy between vote shares and seat shares across the country as a whole, and which motivates much of the support for electoral reform. <br />
<br />
AV may even prevent a party that is more preferred than any of its competitors from winning in a constituency. Take, for example, a constituency with three candidates on the ballot, let’s call them Harriet, Chris and William. Voters are asked to rank their preferences for these on their ballot papers. A possible outcome would be the following:<br />
<br />
40 % of the voters give 1st preference to Harriet, 2nd preference to Chris, and 3rd to William.;<br />
<br />
35 % give 1st preference to William, 2nd preference to Chris, and 3rd to Harriet;<br />
<br />
25 % give 1st preference to Chris, 2nd preference to William, and 3rd to Harriet.<br />
<br />
Because none of the candidates has more than 50% of the 1st preferences, Chris is eliminated because he got the smallest number of 1st preferences. The 25% of the ballots which ranked Chris first are now allocated to William and Harriet, depending on the second preferences. In the example above, everyone who ranked Chris first ranked William second, so all these votes are transferred to William, who thus obtains a comfortable majority of 60% (35% + 25%) and wins the seat. <br />
<br />
But actually, Chris, who was eliminated, was more preferred than either Harriet or William! 65 % of the voters prefer Chris over William (40% + 25%), while 60% prefer Chris over Harriet (35% + 25%). All that this shows is that the ‘majority’ with which William would be elected under the AV system, is an artificial one. <br />
<br />
All in all, AV does not solve the biggest problem that leads to the call for electoral reform. It does not yield more proportional outcomes than the current FPTP system, which is exactly why both Labour and Conservatives can conceivably live with it without giving up their dreams of an absolute majority of the seats. And finally, AV can easily lead to the elimination of a candidates who is more preferred than any of his or her competitors. <br />
<br />
In a next contribution to this blog more about other alternatives to FPTP.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/cees.vandereijk">Professor Cees van der Eijk</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-81139223351414488062010-05-11T10:06:00.000-07:002010-05-11T10:19:14.341-07:00Clingendael 1 LibDems 0<blockquote><strong>"Would you buy a second-hand car from Mr. Clegg? In the end, it depends on how desperate you are to get on the road..."</strong></blockquote><br />
With a group of eager-to-learn postgraduate students on an <a href="http://pgstudy.nottingham.ac.uk/postgraduate-courses/international-relations-masters-ma_275.aspx">MA Programme in International Relations</a>, I recently undertook a one-day crash course in negotiation at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations at Clingendael. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Here’s what I learnt. <br />
<br />
First, zero-sum negotiations are hard. What you gain, I lose - and trust is a problem. It’s like buying a second-hand car from a stranger. What we really want is positive-sum or ‘integrative’ negotiation. I trade what I value less for what you value less and vice versa. We package different issues so that we can both win. That’s all pretty straightforward. <br />
<br />
Slightly less intuitive is the route to optimising the outcome when the negotiating partners have unequal resources. The weaker party may maximise their own benefits by allowing the stronger party to take more. Looking for equality may be sub-optimal for the weaker party. <br />
<br />
For all of this to work, however, there are some background conditions that need to be secured: a clear negotiating mandate, clear priorities, commitment to a relationship that extends across time, measurable outputs. Could any of this help Mr Clegg on the neatly-chiselled points of his painful dilemma? <br />
<br />
It’s clear that the junior partner in any negotiation can overplay his hand – and end up with nothing (or, rather, nothing more than he began with). But, of course, the senior partners also have a very great deal to lose in walking away. <br />
<br />
Uncertainty has a place in any real world negotiation but in Mr Clegg’s circumstances this is multiplex almost to the point of bewilderment. It’s possible to lose and the stakes are very high but the value of a win may justify some very high-risk behaviour. <br />
<br />
Would you buy a second-hand car from Mr. Clegg? In the end, it depends on how desperate you are to get on the road.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/chris.pierson">Professor Chris Pierson</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-33912147103945509582010-05-10T04:21:00.000-07:002010-05-10T04:22:16.576-07:00ConDemnation?<blockquote><strong>"But what was it that Karl Marx said about History repeating itself, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce?"</strong></blockquote><br />
Amidst all the speculation regarding negotiations about the creation of a post-election arrangement between the Conservatives and LibDems I haven’t seen any reference to the last time the Liberals (as they were then) put in a minority government. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Actually, they did this twice in the 1920s, first in 1923 and then in 1929. Neither time will give Nick Clegg much comfort.<br />
<br />
After the 1923 election Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin resigned as his Conservative government had lost its majority, although with 258 seats (and 38.5 per cent of votes) his remained the largest party in the Commons. After some hand wringing Henry Asquith decided that his 158 Liberal MPs should allow Ramsay MacDonald to hold office, the two parties sharing a common position on free trade. They supported Labour on a supply and confidence basis. The MacDonald government however lasted just ten months, after losing a vote of confidence, having achieved very little of substance. <br />
<br />
The resulting 1924 election saw Baldwin return to power with a working majority. The Liberals, having angered many of its supporters for enabling Labour to hold power for the first time, lost 118 seats and its share of the vote collapsed from 29.7 per cent (and virtual parity with Labour) to 17.8 per cent. They would never again enjoy such a strong position as that held in 1923.<br />
<br />
After five years as Prime Minister Baldwin lost the 1929 election. This time Labour had become the largest party in the Commons but at 287 seats MacDonald was still short of a majority. The Liberals, by now led by David Lloyd George, had 59 MPs (albeit elected by 23.6 per cent of voters) and again allowed Labour to take power. This time, however, there were some strings attached – specifically a royal commission on electoral reform. Unfortunately for the Liberals by the time Labour left office in 1931, amidst a grave financial crisis, it had failed to pass any legislation. <br />
<br />
Of course, just because this earlier Liberal experience of supporting minority governments was so miserable does not necessarily mean it will be in the future. But what was it that Karl Marx said about History repeating itself, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce? <br />
<br />
<a href="http://nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/steven.fielding">Professor Steven Fielding</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-66469241000198197592010-05-09T06:16:00.000-07:002010-05-09T12:15:24.923-07:00Oh dear...<strong>"It turns out to be all leaflets and trudging and stubby pencils..."</strong><br />
<br />
Anyone who doesn’t enjoy politics would be well advised to avoid today’s papers. Not only is there the masses of detailed analysis of the election results that always follows an election – loads of wonderful pie charts, tables, and multi-coloured maps – but there’s also story after story about hung parliament discussions and possibilities. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I would, though, recommend one piece in particular: <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1275418/SUZANNE-MOORE-The-night-I-trounced-Raving-Loony--youngest-popped-Ms-Abbotts-balloons.html?ito=feeds-newsxml">Suzanne Moore’s column</a> in the Mail on Sunday. Moore stood as a candidate at this election, in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/constituency/986/hackney-north-and-stoke-newington">Hackney North and Stoke Newington</a>. She is a little coy about her performance (she got 285 votes, or 0.6%), but the piece is worth reading for the insights that standing gave her about politics:<br />
<blockquote><strong></strong><br />
<blockquote><strong>It is easy enough to watch The Thick of It and read spin-doctors’ diaries and look at blogs and imagine endless sophisticated strategising. It turns out to be all leaflets and trudging and stubby pencils and rows of people counting paper under strip lighting. It’s not about grand policy statements but listening to people rant about parking. Or the arms trade. Or their burst pipes. Or their rents. Or Afghanistan. Politicians, I now realised, over-promise because somehow punters ask them. </strong></blockquote></blockquote>To which, the only response is: welcome to politics.<br />
<br />
Perhaps all columnists in major papers – especially those who frequently pontificate about the political process – should be made to go through a similar experience, so that they understand what it is that they write about. <br />
<br />
And yes, the same would apply to politics academics. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/philip.cowley">Professor Philip Cowley</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-34506323340587649232010-05-08T12:33:00.000-07:002010-05-08T12:33:02.809-07:00Despite expenses, incumbent MPs do wellOne of the most intriguing – and unexpected - features of Thursday’s election was the relative success of local, incumbent, MPs. The BBC/ITN/Sky exit poll found that in Labour held seats with new candidates, the Con-Lab swing was 7.5%. But in seats with incumbents, the swing was just 4%. The former would have been enough to win a majority for the Conservatives. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The latter was not. In other words, all the work put in by the much maligned incumbent members of the Parliamentary Labour Party over the last few years in their constituencies – holding surgeries, answering letters, dealing with constituents’ problems and so on – may have been enough to prevent a Conservative majority.<br />
<br />
Of the top 100 Conservative targets, there were just nine Labour-held seats which the Conservatives did not take. Of these nine, eight were held by incumbent MPs. <br />
<br />
You can see this in seats close to the University of Nottingham, where one popular hardworking local MP, Vernon Coaker, survived, despite holding exactly the sort of seat that the Conservatives were winning elsewhere. And in Broxtowe, right next door to the University, another equally hard working and popular local MP, Nick Palmer, almost hung on, limiting the Lab-Con swing to just 2.6%, and losing by a mere 389 votes. <br />
<br />
Of course, there can be other factors involved. Lots of these target seats had relatively large non-white populations, for example, and there is some evidence that those types of seats also performed better for Labour. <br />
<br />
What’s surprising, though, is that there is any effect at all. A growing incumbency factor has been building up in recent elections, but most people suspected that the expenses scandal would counter-act that this time – that this may be the very worst election to be an incumbent, and the best to be a challenger. Not so. It may be that with many of the ‘worst’ expenses offenders gone, expenses was nullified as an issue – and that those remaining MPs were able to dig in. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/philip.cowley">Professor Philip Cowley</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-73471751821964471432010-05-08T12:28:00.000-07:002010-05-09T06:10:04.198-07:00Localised elections, localised incompetence“An Englishman, even if he is alone”, said <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mikes">George Mikes</a>, “forms an orderly queue of one.” Some of Thursday night’s queues to vote appear to have been a bit less than orderly. Of all the claims made about the problems at polling stations, the most ludicrous is that poor electoral administration prevented a higher turnout. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Obviously this is literally true, but to secure a rise of just one percentage point in turnout requires more than 400,000 extra voters. Nothing in the reports so far indicates that we are talking about that many people; I’ll be surprised if the numbers proved to have been ‘denied’ their vote even hit 4,000, if that. That would represent a rise of 0.01% in the turnout. <br />
<br />
The second bizarre claim is that the problems were caused by a ‘surge’ in turnout. There was no surge. Estimates of turnout put it at about 65%, just four percentage points up on what it had been in 2005. This is a lower turnout than in the 75 years at every election between 1922 and 1997. <br />
<br />
We managed then without turning people away; competent electoral administrators should have been able to manage yesterday. The problems seen are on Thursday are much more to do with localised incompetence -- and penny pinching by councils – than any great surge in voting. <br />
<br />
No doubt the Electoral Commission will get it in the neck for this. If there’s a national commission dealing with elections, then it’s inevitable that that is where the finger will point. Yet although the Commission provides oversight, much of the delivery of elections is decentralised, run by local councils – and it’s here that the problems appear to have been. <br />
<br />
Here’s the interesting thing: one of the big ideas in British politics is that of localism, decentralisation, the idea that the centre shouldn’t always run things. That’s exactly how the UK runs its elections. And whilst most councils run elections very well, others don’t. What you saw on Thursday was localism in action, for good or ill. <br />
<br />
<strong>UPDATE</strong>: A comment below makes the point that the population has grown in recent years. True, and in total more people voted on Thursday than in elections up until the 1970s. But at the same time, we now have much more widely available postal voting – 15% voted by post during the last election, most people think the figure will be higher this time – and so the footfall in polling stations on the day will still be less now than in almost all post-war elections. (Without knowing the precise number of postal votes, it’s difficult to say, but even if the rate stays the same as in 2005, I estimate you have to go back to 1945 before you find fewer people passing through polling stations on the day). Also, polling stations now stay open for longer (it used to be until 9pm, now it’s 10pm), so there’s even less excuse.<br />
<br />
<br />
More importantly, I wasn’t arguing that this was unimportant, and that people shouldn’t be annoyed. Merely that, when blame is being apportioned, it should go where it is deserved – those councils that cocked-up – and not where it doesn’t. This is localised incompetence, and we should deal with it on that basis. <br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/philip.cowley">Professor Philip Cowley</a> </strong>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-35133408781326973722010-05-07T12:38:00.000-07:002010-05-07T12:38:25.249-07:00It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...This has been, without question, one of the most intriguing and unpredictable of elections in living memory. For political scientists and media commentators alike, it generated huge anticipation and a real sense of excitement about the outcome. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Blog sites like this one have attracted much attention, particularly from journalists looking for insight and new angles. <br />
<br />
<br />
The television debates also injected a sense of dynamism and freshness to the well-worn routine of election campaigning, which used to be dominated by morning press conferences, poster launches, and carefully stage managed events.<br />
<br />
However, for all the excitement amongst the commentariat, academics and other assorted anoraks, it appears that the wider public has not been so engaged. When I talked recently to BBC East Midlands chief political correspondent, John Hess, we both noted the lack of posters in windows and the absence of car-stickers compared to what was once commonplace in previous elections.<br />
<br />
Highly impressionistic, of course, but there did seem to be a mismatch between the way the election was generating interest amongst analysts and the lack of visible evidence of much popular engagement. This was probably reflected in the very high number of 'don't knows', ‘not quite sures’ and ‘might change my minds’ right up to the eve of voting.<br />
<br />
Vindicating that lack of connection between people and politics, turnout looks like it will be about 65 per cent. This is better than the 61.4 per cent in 2005 and the even poorer 59.4 in 2001. But those were elections where the outcome was never really in doubt. <br />
<br />
This time round, we expected that electoral uncertainty – combined with the interest generated by the TV debates - would lead to a much higher figure. In some places, turnout did exceed 70 per cent – people were turned away from the polls in the end - but the overall figure looks much worse than in every <a href="http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm">other election since 1945</a>, none of which saw turn-out drop below 71.4 per cent. <br />
<br />
The campaign, then, has not reversed the deep-set popular disillusionment with the political class, one made only worse by the 2009 expenses scandal. Only time will tell what effect the parties ongoing attempts to resolve the present Parliamentary stand-off will have on this continued sense of disenchantment with those who exercise power in our name. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/paul.heywood">Professor Paul Heywood</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-32206315222355393242010-05-07T07:12:00.000-07:002010-05-07T07:17:49.911-07:00“A Nation Divided ..”This blog, which has offered something for everyone, from the anorak to the anarchist, has come in for some criticism for its neglect of the smaller parties. Here’s nearly a last chance to put this right. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="http://www.scottishjacobites.com/">The Scottish Jacobite Party</a> stood two candidates in the General Election and mustered a grand total of 290 votes. Following the party’s strategy for government is not entirely straightforward (no pledge card or contract with the voters here) but its proposal to re-draw the boundaries of Scotland to include much of northern England (allowing for the inclusion of four additional clubs in the Scottish Premier League) is surely an interesting and innovative move. <br />
<br />
It’s clear following the results across the U.K. that there is a swathe of non-metropolitan England that wishes for ever to be ruled by Tories. The rest of the island would seemingly be happy to be under the governance of almost anyone else. Rather than reform the voting system, why not just re-draw the national boundaries? The few disaffected Scottish Tories can move to Witney or Henley. Marooned Lib Dems and Labour supporters could just head north. The South-land could become Victoria and the north country could become, well, how about Sweden II - or maybe just <a href="http://electionblog2010.blogspot.com/2010/04/but-what-do-they-believe-in.html">Utopia</a>.<br />
<br />
As they all say, it’s time for a change.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/chris.pierson">Professor Chris Pierson</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-50114130714693816832010-05-07T04:41:00.000-07:002010-05-07T04:41:58.799-07:00The Unintended Consequences of Electoral ReformOnce the nature of the May 6th poll became clear, Labour figures have keenly reiterated their party’s support for a referendum on electoral reform, seeing this as the means of creating a ‘progressive alliance’ with the LibDems. As Steven Fielding <a href="http://electionblog2010.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-av-why-now.html">noted back in February</a> on this blog, it was precisely in anticipation of a hung Parliament that led Labour came out in support of the Alternative Vote.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
A more proportional electoral formula would certainly provide fairer representation and bring Britain into line with other European democracies. But if – a big if - the LibDems are open to talks, then careful attention must be paid to which of the many alternatives to first-past-the-post should be adopted. The unintended consequences of electoral reform need to be confronted now. <br />
<br />
I have <a href="http://electionblog2010.blogspot.com/2010/04/still-not-talking-about-immigration.html">noted in previous blogs</a> that the public has consistently placed immigration as the most important electoral issue after the economy. During the campaign however the main parties did their best to park the issue. Our current electoral system allowed them to do this, as it exists on the basis of a two (sometimes three) party cartel. <br />
<br />
A more proportional formula could change this cosy set up. First-past-the-post has many faults but it has prevented anti-immigration parties from winning Commons seats. As Matt Goodwin <a href="http://electionblog2010.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-study-on-bnp-support-why-ippr-got.html">has noted here </a>the BNP has won an increasing number of council and European Parliament seats. So far in 2010, UKIP and BNP together have received 5% of the popular vote, compared to 2.9% in 2005, indicating some rise in support—and these figures are probably suppressed by tactical voting. <br />
<br />
But the BNP still remains marginal in terms of the national debate on immigration. However the experience of many other European countries—France, Denmark, the Netherlands, for instance—shows that once installed in a national parliament the ability of parties like the BNP to set the terms of the immigration debate is immeasurably increased. This has had the result of intensifying a particularly negative focus on the place of Muslims within their respective national identities <br />
<br />
So, while some Labour and LibDem sympathisers might hope that their two parties can come to some ‘progressive’ agreement based around electoral reform they need to be aware that the consequences may be far from progressive because they might create longer term grounds for the further rise and growing influence of the anti-immigrant right.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/lauren.mclaren">Dr Lauren McLaren</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-29623285121539829612010-05-07T01:52:00.000-07:002010-05-07T01:57:12.381-07:00Electoral chaos and surprises aplentyThe most significant outcome of this election campaign is - undoubtedly - the Conservatives' inability to win an outright majority in the House of Commons. This in spite of the first-past-the post electoral system, which consistently boosts the proportion of seats of the largest party on the basis of votes won (with some 36 % of the votes, the Conservatives stand to get about 46% of the seats). If this was the most significant outcome, it is then one of the least surprising, given the dynamics of the 2010 campaign. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Some of the more surprising outcomes of election night have been:<br />
<br />
• the failure of the SNP and Plaid Cymru to make significant gains<br />
<br />
• the large local variations around a general swing<br />
<br />
• the Greens winning their first MP<br />
<br />
• Peter Robinson’s defeat in Belfast East. <br />
<br />
• And last, but not least, the failure of the BNP to gain any seats (in spite of them getting more than twice as many votes as the Greens)<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most surprising – and worrying – discovery has been how badly organized the electoral process has been in some parts of the country. The queues of people waiting – and some times failing – to vote tell their own story. <br />
<br />
The rise in turnout compared to 2005 was modest: what would have happened if it had reached even 1990s levels of more than 70%? Bearing in mind problems with an outdated registration system in much of the country and well-established postal vote fraud, Britain’s elections must now rank as amongst the worst run of the world’s developed democracies.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/cees.vandereijk">Professor Cees van der Eijk</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-19810532440327263302010-05-07T01:38:00.000-07:002010-05-07T02:24:33.275-07:00Election of losersThis has been an election of losers. David Cameron failed to seal the deal and Gordon Brown has seen Labour lose over 90 seats. The biggest losers however are the LibDems. Yet while the high hopes of Cleggmania have taken a very hard knock, they still have a chance to clutch victory from defeat. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
During the campaign Clegg made some very unwise pronouncements – about not dealing with Gordon Brown and how the party that won the most Commons seats and most votes should be given the chance to govern. The logic of what Clegg said means that the LibDems now have apparently no option but to rebuff any overtures from Labour and support the Conservatives who will not deal with Gordon Brown. Maybe Clegg will decide his personal credibility rests on living up to his words. Maybe his fellow MPs will decide otherwise when they meet on Saturday.<br />
<br />
For – poorly though they performed on May 6th – the LibDems have a once-in-a-generation chance to get electoral reform – and the only party offering that at the moment is Gordon Brown’s Labour party. As projections stand Labour and the LibDems together still fall short of a Commons majority – but one wonders how the SNP and Plaid look upon a return of the Conservatives to power. <br />
<br />
The Daily Mail and the Sun will all scream that Cameron has won. He hasn’t. No-one won the 2010 election. But do the LibDems have the political fortitude to ensure they win the post-election campaign? It will be an interesting meeting on Saturday. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/steven.fielding">Professor Steven Fielding</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-60152172717492963042010-05-06T14:06:00.001-07:002010-05-06T16:20:34.169-07:00Philip Cowley - reactions to resultsThe BBC/ITN/Sky exit poll shows no one party with enough seats to form a majority. The Conservatives have done well, putting on almost 100 seats, but not well enough. But - if the exit poll is right - there are also not enough Labour and Lib Dem MPs to form a coalition majority either. Most importantly, however, the poll shows things to be on a knife-edge, and close enough so that any strange results could tip the balance. It promises to be one of the most exciting election nights in living memory. <br />
<br />
12:05am<br />
The first three seats - the three Sunderland seats - have seen turnout rise by about 5 percentage points. If that is repeated across the country, overall turnout will remain below 70%. However, it is perfectly possible that turnout will be more variable, and the increase will be greater elsewhere.<br />
<br />
<br />
Professor Philip CowleyThe School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5612670157201289832.post-47952825817577911232010-05-06T07:13:00.000-07:002010-05-06T07:14:38.077-07:00What counts as a majority?In all the pre-election discussion, much attention focuses on the number 326. It’s half of 650 (which is the number of seats in the new House of Commons), plus one. And anyone who reaches 326 is therefore guaranteed of a majority in the Commons. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
But there’s good reason to be sceptical about 326 being the target number. <br />
<br />
For one thing, the election in Thirsk and Malton is not taking place today – because of the death of the UKIP candidate. It is, or should be, a safe Tory seat. But until it actually counts, who knows? (I mean, who knows what it would be like were it be contested in by-election-like conditions, as the difference between a hung parliament and a Conservative government?). As of today, 649 seats are up for grabs. <br />
<br />
Then there’s Sinn Fein MPs, who don’t take their seats. At present, there are five of those. If we assume they hold all five seats, and make no gains, that makes 644 seats actually up for grabs. (It’d be one of the ironies of a really close election that Sinn Fein gains would actually be good for David Cameron...)<br />
<br />
And then there’s the Speaker and three Deputy Speakers, who don’t vote (except in tied votes). Assuming John Bercow is returned in Buckingham and continues as Speaker. That leaves three Deputy Speakers, two of whom have retired. Assuming the one remaining Deputy Speaker, the Conservative Alan Haselhurst holds his seat and continues in office, that leaves two to be filled. The Conservatives could attempt to argue that both have to be from the ranks of the Opposition (given that there is normally parity across the four, and that both Haselhurst and Bercow represent Conservative seats, albeit formerly in the case of the latter). That effectively reduces the number of seats in play by another one. <br />
<br />
That makes 642, rather than 650. And means a majority of 322 would provide David Cameron with a majority, at least until the end of the month. And figure of 323 would mean he had a majority whatever happens in Thirsk. <br />
<br />
In practice, on day-to-day business there’s also the fact that the other Northern Irish MPs often have lowish turnouts in Commons votes, which could also bump up his majority by a handful. <br />
<br />
These sort of minor details often go unnoticed. But in an election which is going to be this close, every seat could matter. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Politics/Staff/philip.cowley">Professor Philip Cowley</a>The School of Politics and International Relations.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06499387045947989393noreply@blogger.com1