In a parliamentary election last Thursday in the seat of Barnsley, a former coal mining area in Northern England, the Labour Party candidate, as expected, was returned handsomely. There were two big surprises, however: the UK Independence Party (which campaigns for Britain to leave the EU and which, I had better declare, I helped found) beat the ruling Conservative party candidate into second place; and the Liberal Democrat Party, junior members of the ruling coalition, were beaten into sixth, behind an independent former miner and the far right anti-immigrant British National Party.
Naturally many people are asking whether this is the end for the Liberal Democrats and whilst we shouldn’t draw too many conclusions from one result, I think there are points of interest here.
Just twenty or twenty-five years ago there were effectively three parties: you voted Labour or Conservative and if you wanted to register a protest vote you voted Liberal. There were of course others on the ballot paper- the excellent David Sutch of the Monster Raving Loony Party, for example – but they were cranks. The Liberals were slightly cranky but they had party conferences and party political broadcasts on the television so were a sort of institutionalised protest.
In the 1980s and early 1990s three new national parties emerged: UKIP, the Green Party and the British National Party. They stayed way behind the Liberals (now the Liberal Democrats) but changes to the political broadcast rules meant the smaller parties got more airtime, so the electoral position outside the top two was LibDems (institutional protest), UKIP / Green / BNP (semi-institutional), others. But note that whilst the semi-institutional three had defined core beliefs, the LibDems, to maintain themselves alone in the second division, did not (or at least the notion of 'Liberalism' was sufficiently hazy to adapt to changing circumstances). So only a percentage of LibDem voters voted that way because of what was in their manifesto. It is thought that their core vote is only around 5% of the electorate whereas UKIP, for example has a (total) vote of around 7%.
Now with the LibDems joining the government, their share of the ‘none of the above’ vote may be lost in whole or in part. Of course the core beliefs of the others may hold them back from capturing all these protests: you might be in favour of the EU, anti-environmentalism and pro immigration, but few, I think, share that exotic eclecticism - there is something for everyone.
The LibDem position would seem to be this: if, as we near the next election, the Coalition is seen to have failed, they will reap in full measure what they have sowed. They might well split up into single issue parties, pro-EU for example. If, by contrast, the Coalition is a success, there is the serious risk that Mr Cameron will allow himself to be talked into governing alone (most of his backbenchers don’t like the coalition). In this case the LibDems will find it hard to return to being the principal recipient of the protest vote. They will have been tainted.
Mr Clegg’s best hope is that Mr Cameron still needs him in five years’ time.
Showing posts with label Lib Dems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lib Dems. Show all posts
07 March, 2011
10 May, 2010
The LibDems and the system
The LibDems, understandably, are resentful about the number of seats they won, which I admit was very low compared to their share of the vote. As Robert Tilleard comments, for achieving nearly a quarter of the vote they got less then a tenth of the seats. I wonder if I can offer some advice?
Firstly, the British system is not about voting for a party, it is about voting for a person to represent you. So in this respect complaints from a party are irrelevant. But no one claims that the First Past the Post (FPTP) system is perfect, only that it is the least bad.
The Tories suffered too:
In Scotland: Labour polled 1,035,528, which translated into 41 seats
The Tories polled 412,855, yet got only 1 seat
In Wales:Labour polled 531,601 for 26 seats
The Tories 382,730 for 8 seats
Those are even worse percentages of seats to votes than the LibDems complain of.
I have chosen this example because as everyone knows the Tories are not very popular in Scotland and Wales. They would have done far better to concentrate their resources on areas where they were likely to do well, rather than come second or third. The reason they don’t is that they feel they have to fight every seat in order to look like a national party.
And this is the Liberal problem – always has been. The reason they fight every seat is historical: they were once, when Lloyd George was with us, the governing party, and they still aspire to this: they think they have to offer a candidate in every constituency. They remind me of an athlete who comes second in every race demanding a share of the World Champion’s crown.
Of course, one of the reasons they so often come second or a good third is that they are the disaffected voter’s party. If we had a system in which they were likely to do very well, people might start to look at their policies, which are a ragbag of the clever and the insane. Europe, for example, is unpopular with the British electorate. If the two main parties had realised in time that the LibDems would be such a threat, they would have continually broadcast to a terrified electorate Nick Clegg’s speeches on further integration and Vince Cable saying how joining the euro would solve our problems. Their vote would have ben considerably lower if they had been scrutinised.
But they could do better under the present system. The solution for the LibDems is to abandon their blanket coverage and concentrate on places they do well. The South West is an example: if they had not bothered with candidates in a good 150 seats but love bombed the South West, turning themselves into a sort of Wessex Regional Party those second places might have been translated into firsts. As it is they put up candidates in safe Labour or Tory seats, the candidate gets 5,000 votes, nowhere near winning, and that five thousand votes are added to the total that they whinge about not getting them enough seats. It’s a bit disingenuous, really.
Back to the voting system. The human mind isn’t channelled along two or three fixed lines, it is nuanced. There are many strands of belief and opinion and government is achieved by coalitions of belief. Under the British system the large parties are the coalitions, each one has a left, a right and a middle and they just about manage to rub along together, Ken Clarke with Michael Howard, Tony Benn with Tony Blair. Under the continental system there are many more parties and they come together to form a coalition. The difference is that under our system you know the policies before you vote. Under the Continental system you get to find out about them after you have voted.
Firstly, the British system is not about voting for a party, it is about voting for a person to represent you. So in this respect complaints from a party are irrelevant. But no one claims that the First Past the Post (FPTP) system is perfect, only that it is the least bad.
The Tories suffered too:
In Scotland: Labour polled 1,035,528, which translated into 41 seats
The Tories polled 412,855, yet got only 1 seat
In Wales:Labour polled 531,601 for 26 seats
The Tories 382,730 for 8 seats
Those are even worse percentages of seats to votes than the LibDems complain of.
I have chosen this example because as everyone knows the Tories are not very popular in Scotland and Wales. They would have done far better to concentrate their resources on areas where they were likely to do well, rather than come second or third. The reason they don’t is that they feel they have to fight every seat in order to look like a national party.
And this is the Liberal problem – always has been. The reason they fight every seat is historical: they were once, when Lloyd George was with us, the governing party, and they still aspire to this: they think they have to offer a candidate in every constituency. They remind me of an athlete who comes second in every race demanding a share of the World Champion’s crown.
Of course, one of the reasons they so often come second or a good third is that they are the disaffected voter’s party. If we had a system in which they were likely to do very well, people might start to look at their policies, which are a ragbag of the clever and the insane. Europe, for example, is unpopular with the British electorate. If the two main parties had realised in time that the LibDems would be such a threat, they would have continually broadcast to a terrified electorate Nick Clegg’s speeches on further integration and Vince Cable saying how joining the euro would solve our problems. Their vote would have ben considerably lower if they had been scrutinised.
But they could do better under the present system. The solution for the LibDems is to abandon their blanket coverage and concentrate on places they do well. The South West is an example: if they had not bothered with candidates in a good 150 seats but love bombed the South West, turning themselves into a sort of Wessex Regional Party those second places might have been translated into firsts. As it is they put up candidates in safe Labour or Tory seats, the candidate gets 5,000 votes, nowhere near winning, and that five thousand votes are added to the total that they whinge about not getting them enough seats. It’s a bit disingenuous, really.
Back to the voting system. The human mind isn’t channelled along two or three fixed lines, it is nuanced. There are many strands of belief and opinion and government is achieved by coalitions of belief. Under the British system the large parties are the coalitions, each one has a left, a right and a middle and they just about manage to rub along together, Ken Clarke with Michael Howard, Tony Benn with Tony Blair. Under the continental system there are many more parties and they come together to form a coalition. The difference is that under our system you know the policies before you vote. Under the Continental system you get to find out about them after you have voted.
11 April, 2010
UK Elections 9: Saint Vince
The Liberal Democrats are doing fairly well in the polls at the moment, in particular in the marginal constituencies. In my view this is largely as a result of John ‘Vince’ Cable, the treasury spokesman.
Formerly an adviser to Labour Party chief John Smith, Cable stood for the Labour Party unsuccessfully in Glasgow Hillhead in 1970. He joined the Social Democratic Party when it spun away from Labour in the 1980s and the Liberal Democrats when the SDP merged with the Liberal Party in 1988.
Cable is a likeable man and made a name for himself when as stand-in leader he accused Gordon Brown of moving rapidly ‘from Stalin to Mr. Bean’.
Cable seems to run a remarkable spin operation, with many people believing that he, and he alone, forecast the financial crisis. What in fact he did do was to warn, in 2003, that consumer debt was too easy in Britain, and that it was secured on unsustainably high house prices. Many others did, too, notably the Conservative Party. Cable was right, but it was no great shakes. He could have read it in the newspapers. Cable did not go so far as to advise higher interest rates. Gordon Brown was keeping interest rates low – even changing the definition of inflation to stop the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England from raising them – to keep house prices rising and everybody happy.
At the same time Cable was urging the Government to join the euro, which he has now admitted was not sensible advice: ‘there are various things that we have learnt about euroland, and about the eurozone, which are clearly problems that need to be resolved.' Many of us had been saying it was a disastrous policy but 'Vince' wouldn't listen.
Cable’s spin operation went wrong recently when he let it be known that he had been briefed by the Treasury as a possible future chancellor and that he was ‘ready to serve’ (a phrase drawn, I think, from Paris Hilton’s unsuccessful and brief campaign to be President: I'm ready to, like, serve). The Treasury fed out to the media that the meeting had been at his request and that they had not been briefing a future chancellor.
As regards the rest of the recession Cable has admitted in his book that he had no idea what was going on in America. In fact he hadn't come close to what was happening.
For me, as I have said before, the writing does not go all the way through. Cable is a help to his party because he gives them credibility by looking like some sort of sage. Both Labour and the Tories need to find him out, which in my view shouldn’t be difficult.
Formerly an adviser to Labour Party chief John Smith, Cable stood for the Labour Party unsuccessfully in Glasgow Hillhead in 1970. He joined the Social Democratic Party when it spun away from Labour in the 1980s and the Liberal Democrats when the SDP merged with the Liberal Party in 1988.
Cable is a likeable man and made a name for himself when as stand-in leader he accused Gordon Brown of moving rapidly ‘from Stalin to Mr. Bean’.
Cable seems to run a remarkable spin operation, with many people believing that he, and he alone, forecast the financial crisis. What in fact he did do was to warn, in 2003, that consumer debt was too easy in Britain, and that it was secured on unsustainably high house prices. Many others did, too, notably the Conservative Party. Cable was right, but it was no great shakes. He could have read it in the newspapers. Cable did not go so far as to advise higher interest rates. Gordon Brown was keeping interest rates low – even changing the definition of inflation to stop the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England from raising them – to keep house prices rising and everybody happy.
At the same time Cable was urging the Government to join the euro, which he has now admitted was not sensible advice: ‘there are various things that we have learnt about euroland, and about the eurozone, which are clearly problems that need to be resolved.' Many of us had been saying it was a disastrous policy but 'Vince' wouldn't listen.
Cable’s spin operation went wrong recently when he let it be known that he had been briefed by the Treasury as a possible future chancellor and that he was ‘ready to serve’ (a phrase drawn, I think, from Paris Hilton’s unsuccessful and brief campaign to be President: I'm ready to, like, serve). The Treasury fed out to the media that the meeting had been at his request and that they had not been briefing a future chancellor.
As regards the rest of the recession Cable has admitted in his book that he had no idea what was going on in America. In fact he hadn't come close to what was happening.
For me, as I have said before, the writing does not go all the way through. Cable is a help to his party because he gives them credibility by looking like some sort of sage. Both Labour and the Tories need to find him out, which in my view shouldn’t be difficult.
14 March, 2010
UK Elections (1)
The Liberal Democrats are having their Spring Conference at the moment and their leader, Nick Clegg, addressed them this morning. He had almost lost his voice, which was unfortunate, but his speech seemed in any case lacklustre. A well written speech telegraphs the punchline to the audience, who are on their feet by the time the final words are delivered. Clegg seemed to deliver his big points in an artificially big voice and there was a half second's wait before the applause began. The whole thing seemed belaboured, insufficiently genuine.
I did not see the speech of John 'Vince' Cable, who is the party's darling. Many people seem to love him. For me, the writing doesn't go all the way through.
The LibDems currently have 62 MPs and in my opnion this number will not increase. They are the principal protest vote party. When the election result is assured people have the luxury of voting for them to make sure the two main parties don't feel too comfortable. When the result is squeezed, and the last time was 1992, the vote polarises. Secondly, there are now at least two more serious protests, UKIP and the Greens, and in several constituencies the BNP or the Nationalists. Paradoxically, as the LibDems get closer to holding the balance of power their vote declines.
What they need to do is get away from the idea of being somewhere between the two main parties. They need something of their own (their two main policies of better education and lower taxes for the poorest, whilst sensible, don't really cut it). In my view they should go towards being liberal, as they were a century ago: free trade, less inteference in people's lives, civil liberties.
30 years ago Mrs Thatcher cut this ground from under them. Now they could reclaim it.
But they won't. When all is said and done, they are a party of protest for the left. When the Tories are on form, and we don't yet know if they are, the LibDems can be annihilated.
I did not see the speech of John 'Vince' Cable, who is the party's darling. Many people seem to love him. For me, the writing doesn't go all the way through.
The LibDems currently have 62 MPs and in my opnion this number will not increase. They are the principal protest vote party. When the election result is assured people have the luxury of voting for them to make sure the two main parties don't feel too comfortable. When the result is squeezed, and the last time was 1992, the vote polarises. Secondly, there are now at least two more serious protests, UKIP and the Greens, and in several constituencies the BNP or the Nationalists. Paradoxically, as the LibDems get closer to holding the balance of power their vote declines.
What they need to do is get away from the idea of being somewhere between the two main parties. They need something of their own (their two main policies of better education and lower taxes for the poorest, whilst sensible, don't really cut it). In my view they should go towards being liberal, as they were a century ago: free trade, less inteference in people's lives, civil liberties.
30 years ago Mrs Thatcher cut this ground from under them. Now they could reclaim it.
But they won't. When all is said and done, they are a party of protest for the left. When the Tories are on form, and we don't yet know if they are, the LibDems can be annihilated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)