Can the Libdem surge last?
contribution by Renard Sexton
As described by “Duverger’s law,” a well-regarded principle in political science, the system of single-member constituencies with plurality voting strongly promotes a two party system.
As the theory goes, a third party can become competitive only if it begins with a reasonable strong regional base and can begin to erode the political space of one of the major parties, eventually replacing it as one of the “two” parties.
This system has thus far forced the Lib Dems to pursue a quite narrow strategy, where they focus on a limited number of seats, and leave most constituencies relatively uncontested. They have been most successful in seats that are effectively two-way (contested between the Lib Dems and one of the major parties, with little role for the second big party), profiting from tactical voting that is actually more related to the “real” competition between the Conservatives and Labour.
A second characteristic of the Liberal Democrats — as well as the SNP, PC and other third parties — is that they tend to win seats not in a single election cycle, but after first reaching a critical threshold of support an election before. While still losing to the major party in the constituency, this baseline of support provides the “plausibility” factor that can turn tactical and ideological voters to the party. This threshold figure varies depending on the specifics of the constituency, such as three way races versus four way races, but tends to be about 30 percent of the vote.
In 2005, seats that the Lib Dem picked up showed a particular voting trend from 1997 to 2005.
In nearly every case, the 2001 election saw a swing to the Lib Dems, usually pulling votes from both Labour and the Tories. And, the stronger that swing was in 2001, the bigger the swing they experienced in 2005. Similarly, many of the seats in which they made progress but did not win in 2005 are now key pickup opportunities for the Lib Dems in 2010.
However, as discussed in part two, there are a limited number of seats where the Lib Dems are in a “threshold” position — indeed, our seat projection model predicts that even if the Liberal Democrats score second in the national popular vote (they are currently on 28.7 percent to Labour’s 26.3), they stand to pick up only about 60 seats.
However, the recent polling renaissance of the Liberal Democrats and overall public dissatisfaction with Labour and ambivalence towards the Conservatives among swing voters has opened a “Duverger” opportunity for the Lib Dems to shake up the political system.
In practical terms, their stronger political position means that they will be able to switch their focus towards three way seats where they have the edge over the Conservatives and Lab-Con marginals where they have not previously had much of a role. Although they will likely only moderately improve on their 2005 MP haul in this election cycle as compared to their strong national popularity, the seeds may be sown for future improvements — if they can secure a strong position in key marginals for the next election, even if they lose them this time around.
In broader terms, if Nick Clegg and company play their cards correctly, they may have the chance to avenge the Liberals of the early 20th century, who were displaced by the Labour movement as the center-left counterpart to the Conservatives in the UK two-party political spectrum.
However, this would require a fundamental shift in the priorities of the party, which has been obsessed with electoral reform since it became clear their dislodgment from the top by Labour in 1920s was going to stick. If they consider that regaining the mantle of the center-left over the next two to three elections is a real possibility, then why not keep plurality voting in order to keep Labour locked out?
It is perhaps a matter of ambition versus pragmatism. Pushed to the margins of power for nearly a century, the Liberals and their progeny the Liberal Democrats perhaps do not believe they can displace Labour as the voice of the center-left. In addition, there is a significant group among the left in Britain who are supporters of electoral reform for ideological reasons rather than for political expediency.
Nonetheless, if the Liberal Democrats want to govern at some point – and it seems that Nick Clegg sees it this way – a simple reform to the electoral system that will bring modest returns to the party at best may not be they way to go. Perhaps they should set their sights on knocking Labour out as much as they can this election — effectively conceding 2010 to the Tories, but building their chances for long term success in the next decades.
——–
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight’s international affairs columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
More questions raised about Phillipa Stroud
Jonathan Bartley, co-founder of the Christian think-tank Ekklesia has more important questions to put to the Conservative PPC Phillipa Stroud and her beliefs.
In an editorial at Ekklesia, he asks: [W]ho would have influence and ‘authority’ over Mrs Stroud if she were elected?
The New Frontiers Church that she attends, and of which her husband is one of the main leaders, teaches that a husband has ‘authority’ over his wife, and that a wife should submit to a husband’s will in all things. The husband is seen as the ‘servant leader’. I know this from close personal experience of the church, and that it runs incredibly deep in the church. Indeed, it is fundamental to their religious approach. See this excerpt from the church’s 17 values which suggests that there must be “joyful female submission” in a marriage (value no. 7):
…
This is a church which does not allow women to have “governmental leadership”. Marrried women are only allowed to teach others in the church, or hold positions of responsibility, if this doesn’t ‘undermine’ their husbands, and they are still under his ‘authority’.
The question must be asked of Philippa Stroud whether, in the event she was elected to Parliament, she would on any occasion ‘submit’ to her husband’s will and vote in a way that he thought was right, even if it contradicted her own position, the promises she had made to voters, or the manifesto on which she was elected?
There are good reasons for us to turn Eurosceptic
In the 1999 book Both Sides of the Coin, Oxford economist James Forder argued against European Monetary Union. Like any good economist, he recognised that a valuable policy analysis necessarily combines economics with politics:
Imagine the scenario where inflation is a problem in Germany, France and some of the other countries. Interest rates rise, leading to a recession in one of the poorer countries which, let us suppose, did not have an inflation problem, and perhaps even needed lower interest rates.
Most of the advocates of EMU, who are also hoping for closer political ties, apparently believe that using the same money will bind Europeans together more than the fact that rich countries will be seen to be imposing pointless recessions on poor ones to push them apart. The truth must be that such circumstances will lead to a growth of nationalist and perhaps even secessionist political movement in the recession-bound countries.
Forder added:
I fear, too, that the political movements arising from these circumstances will not all be in most things moderate. High, persistent unemployment breeds racism, not just separatism… It may then, if generally adverse circumstances develop or divergences between country’s interests become too great, not be inappropriate to doubt the hold of liberal democracy on the European political process. This is the greatest fear of all.
Ten years later we appear to have the makings of an economic situation far worse than the recession-inducing scenario Forder imagined. With the collapse of Greece – and the threat of Spain and Ireland following suit – the Euro looks like it could be in terrible trouble.
But there is more. On Newsnight last week UKIP candidate and former leader Nigel Farage was simply delighted.
He was able to point out that Nick Clegg had gone on record in the leaders’ debate to point out that proposed Tory migrant caps are largely redundant because 80% of immigrants come from EU member states. Accordingly, the British government cannot legally restrict these people’s movement.
Many voters, like Gillian Duffy, are already resentful and angry about immigration; the issue was raised in all three leaders’ debates.
Furthermore, the last Euro election revealed a predominantly Eurosceptic electorate. As it becomes ever more politically-profitable for anti-Europeans to fear-monger about immigration, and to point out that whilst we remain EU members there is little we can do about it, what will the political outcomes be for British EU membership?
“Euroscepticism” normally brings to mind distasteful little-Englander xenophobes like Farage, the sorts who typically make-up UKIP and the Tory right.
But anybody with an ounce of sense should be deeply concerned about the European project at this crucial juncture.
As James Forder put it, he “always thought of himself as a Euroenthusiast until the Maastricht Treaty came to dominate European politics and made that position impossible for a liberal economist.”
——
Disclosure: I was taught by James Forder as an undergraduate.
Where is the Libdem commitment to equality?
Can a Shadow Cabinet tell us anything about its future politics? That, it would seem, depends on the party.
The Tories, for example, have been endlessly criticised for the makeup of their Cabinet because it is seen as being too white, male, and public school/Oxbridge educated. Cue much handwringing, the introduction of the ‘A-list’ of female candidates, and it does now look like the Conservatives are making real progress in this issue.
However, if you take a look at the Lib Dem Shadow Cabinet, you will notice that there are just two women in ministerial positions, Sarah Teather and Julia Goldsworthy, neither of which are particularly high profile.
Given that Sarah Teather is also in a perilously marginal seat after recent boundary changes, she may not even be there for much longer.
If you flick through the profiles of the rest of the candidates, you notice that while the private school bias is less pronounced than with the Tories, the otherwise uniformly white, middle-aged, male faces begin to merge into the ugly cliché of middle England. Some of us had hoped that the absolute domination of this sector of society was being phased out, even just superficially.
On the Oxbridge front, the team of Nick Clegg, Edward Davey, David Heath, Simon Hughes, David Laws, John Thurso, Steve Webb, and Roger Williams should give the sense that you are never far from Britain’s two most élite universities if there is a Lib Dem in the room.
Most incredibly, there are simply no members of the Lib Dem Cabinet from an ethnic minority whatsoever. Nick Clegg’s Dutch mother is about as foreign as it gets on the Liberal front bench.
This is all the more potent given the banner above on the website of “Clegg with the people”, which features citizens of varied race, age, and gender.
Yet, unlike the Conservatives, few people have criticised this state of affairs. If the problem is a Liberal disagreement with affirmative action, then they need to find a way that is equally as effective at promoting candidates and MPs from non-traditional backgrounds to the top of the party.
Whatever the Lib Dems claim to doing on this front, the visual evidence is undeniable. Dinti Batstone, the woman charged with addressing this issue, says all-female shortlists “discriminate against men”, which makes her sound like one of those women who were against the female vote.
Self-hating women aside, I’m sure the party doesn’t have a problem of ingrained sexism and racism, but equally they seem to be taking little action to combat serious problems of diversity. If this is how they treat their Cabinet, how on earth will they treat a mulitcultural country with large and distinct community groups?
I think we seem to be focussing far too much on Clegg as leader and forgetting that a government is made up of a team. Nick Clegg’s team is thirty or so people very much like Nick Clegg (though perhaps less photogenic), so much so that he may just as well have thirty clones of himself made to do the job properly.
If you are a woman, young, of an ethnic minority, or didn’t have an elite education, you might be asking where your place is in the Lib Dems. It certainly isn’t in their Cabinet.
———————
Jennifer is also on Twitter
Why isn’t our parents’ generation paying for us?
contribution by Neil Boorman
If a discussion on Broken Britain goes on long enough, the probability of someone mentioning selfish individualism approaches 1.
It’s the social cancer that gestated during the consumer boom of the 60’s and spread to the heart of every generation thereafter.
There are hundreds of advertising manuals devoted to Baby Boomers, the generation that currently dominates the British political landscape, but they all point to one character trait: the selfish individual.
“Boomers want special treatment,” according to 50 Things Every Marketer Needs to Know About Boomers Over 50, “and feel entitled to it. They want your special treatment because they think they deserve it, or have earned it.”
We’d be mad to infuse the political system with the gloss and instant gratification of the high street.
But it would benefit enormously from the core values of service economy. Popular brands resonate with consumers because they anticipate and meet the needs of their target market.
The political system, on the other hand, has short changed its customers as a matter of routine, and its all taken place under the counter.
Young adults are the most obvious example. From the moment that they become conscious of their place in life (around about the time they compare their first pay packet with the enormous student debt they owe) its clear that they’ve been ripped off.
Almost every privilege that their parents grew up with, and continue to benefit from, has been downsized or discontinued, from free education to social welfare to affordable housing to long-term work. The phone lines, TV stations, gas, airports, airways, steel, water and electricity have been sold off.
There’s no money saved for the upcoming spike in pensions and elderly care. And the clean-up bill for both the credit crunch and the ruined environment can only be picked up by the young. For young adults, normal life as was – a house, two kids, a holiday and savings – is an aspiration that only city traders can realistically expect to attain.
Registration among first time voters might be up and the Clegg Effect is a shot in the arm for British politics. But considering how badly they’ve been stitched up, young adults aren’t engaging on their own terms.
Generational inequality should be a core issue at the election.
Wealthy Boomer graduates should be paying retrospective tuition fees. The Bank Of Mum and Dad should be paying a Tobin tax to pay for child trust funds.
Stamp duty on second homes should be subsidising affordable homes. Unpaid internships for young workers should be assisted with income support. And retirement, for the swollen ranks of Baby Boomers, should be postponed.
But the best thing that young people can do, to save their own skins, is to behave less like marginalised subjects and more like the consumers they were apparently born to be.
Westminster is a service. As full paying customers, young adults can expect their wants and needs to be satisfied. If it fails to meet their demands, they should take it back and exchange it for something else.
According to the law of advertising, Generations X and Y generally respond to propositions with the principle of WIIFM (what’s in it for me?). The current answer, in terms of politics, is ‘not very much at all’. In future, by way of necessity, the answer has got to be ‘everything I deserve’.
————–
Neil Boorman is the author of It’s All Their Fault: A Manifesto
Obs exposes Christian groups helping the Tories
The Observer today casts an eye over the increasingly powerful Conservative grassroots organisation that are pushing their candidates.
Former investment banker Ken Costa, who gave £50,000 last month, is the chairman of Alpha International, an organisation that promotes the hugely popular Alpha course that has introduced millions of people to Christianity.
Michael Farmer, who founded a metals brokerage, gave £250,000 last month and has donated similar sums several times in the past. A self-made multi-millionaire, Farmer says he is happy to carry the “God squad” label. In a recent interview, he explained that he was backing the Tories because Labour “has governed incredibly badly”.
“The tax and benefits structures put in place under Labour have not created a strong society; they’ve done the opposite,” he said. “They’ve just encouraged unhappy lives. The core unit of society – husband, wife, parents, children – has been dismantled. Labour’s idea of a family is three people who share a fridge.”
The feature builds on my article for the New Statesman last week (and credits it at the end), but turns up some very interesting revelations.
The most notable of these has been made into another news story:
Tory star Phillipa Stroud prayed to ‘cure’ gay people’
A high-flying prospective Conservative MP, credited with shaping many of the party’s social policies, founded a church that tried to “cure” homosexuals by driving out their “demons” through prayer.
Philippa Stroud, who is likely to win the Sutton and Cheam seat on Thursday and is head of the Centre for Social Justice, the thinktank set up by the former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, has heavily influenced David Cameron’s beliefs on subjects such as the family. A popular and energetic Tory, she is seen as one of the party’s rising stars.
It’s a shame that our exposés of what is happening within the Conservative Party did not come out earlier.
It’s an important narrative being missed by many in this election.
No to Daily Mail & Sun propaganda! Flashmob Tuesday afternoon
Planned for Tuesday afternoon, this flashmob is our last chance to voice our anger against right-wing propaganda before the election!
Supported by Libcon, and the huge campaign groups Avaaz.org and 38 Degrees!
Join the Facebook event page for latest info.
Blog or Tweet about this and join our coalition please. We cannot let the Daily Mail or Sun win with their campaign of hate-mongering.
—————
Date: Tuesday, 04 May 2010
Time: 13:00 – 13:30
Location: FLASHMOB in Westminster, near Parliament
London, United Kingdom
HOPE vs FEAR? We know which side we’re on.
We’ve had enough of The Sun, The Mail and other rags scaremongering and doing their worst to steal our hopes for change.
Let’s come together to be heard — let’s all FLASH-MOB in WESTMINSTER near Parliament THIS TUESDAY lunchtime!
Come prepared to do battle, with a ROLLED-UP COPY of your (least) favourite TABLOID RAG — and don’t forget a nice bit of LUNCH!
Arrive nonchalantly just beforehand, and…
BANG ON 1, let’s scream out loud and start the biggest ROLLED-UP PAPER SWORD-FIGHT ever!
After we’ve vented our democratic passions at the tabloids, let’s put what’s left of them in a PILE in the middle of the space, and all SIT DOWN for a quick HUNG PARLIAMENT PARTY if we like — a PICNIC lunch and a CHAT about the change we want to see!
After all, our politicians will have to do the same if no-one wins an overall majority in Thursday’s election – and that might be no bad thing.
———————–
Details of the event will go out to tens of thousands by email on Monday morning. In the meantime please join the Facebook event page!
Tory businessmen try swift-boating Clegg
A new group called ‘Policy Diffusion’ is pouring money into ads targeting the Libdems and Nick Clegg especially.
Policy Diffusion is focused on ensuring that the public better understands the policies that are being put forward at this general election, particularly Liberal Democrat policies. Policy Diffusion believes there is a real danger that people will vote for the LibDems without knowing fully what they stand for. Policy Diffusion is trying to correct that, by diffusing email messages through various networks, as well as poster lorries and other means.
Policy Diffusion has been set up by businessmen Richard Thoburn, Mark Rayner, Kevin Harrington and Ken Tonkin. All are very concerned about the effect of a hung parliament on the economy and believe that a Liberal Democrat government or a coalition government with a strong Liberal Democrat influence would be a disaster for the economy and for the country.
Here are some of the ads they are running.
Tory grassroots over at ConHome have been voicing their approval of the campaign.
My endorsement of the Libdems further clarified
Gah! Because of the number of questions and comments this has generated on Twitter, let me clarify a few points.
1. In my last editorial I said I was going to vote Libdems on the basis that I no longer believe this Labour government stands for compassion and for the marginalised. That ideal is the main reason why I see myself on the Left. It’s not feasible for me to support a party who’s leadership does not believe in those principles.
2. I’m not saying everyone should vote Libdems everywhere. In a Tory-Labour fight, I would hope progressives would vote Labour to keep out the Tories. A massive Conservative landslide is the last thing I want.
I was leafleting for a Labour candidate earlier today. And in some local cases I’d gladly support the progressive Labour candidate. So if I were to offer voting advice then I’d say look at the local situation. The focus should be on stopping the Tories from a landslide.
3. On many top issues (ending income tax for the low-paid, investing in green tech, civil liberties, Trident, amnesty etc) I’m nearer to the Libdem position than I am with the Labour position. I suspect many Labourites are too.
4. Many Labourites are pushing the idea that Nick Clegg is almost certainly likely to jump in bed with the Conservatives. I think it’s highly unlikely but I could be proven wrong.
If it happens, then it would be catastrophically bad for the Libdems because it would destroy the idea that Libdems are the natural home for progressives and even liberals. Making these alliances locally is very different to making them nationally. In the long term, as long as Labour picks the right leader who can walk that liberal-left line well, the Labour party would benefit immensely from a Tory-LD coalition.
5. Will more votes for Libdems make it more likely that electoral reform would be delivered? It’s not certain but it is the most likely scenario. The stronger the Libdems, the more likely they’ll be able to demand reform as part of a coalition. As I’ve already said – ideally I want to see a Labour-Libdem coalition, though not under Brown.
A weak Libdem showing would make it less likely to bring about reform because they would be ignored by both parties again. The stronger the Libdems are, the more the inequities of the electoral system become clear.
6. No doubt a lot of Labourites will blame lefties if the Conservatives get a big majority. I’d advise against that. Lefties may switch their allegiances but they would never vote Conservative.
On the other hand, if the Conservatives win big, it will be because they attracted enough floating voters who saw nothing in what Gordon Brown was offering.
If Labour do badly there’s only one person to blame: Gordon Brown. A vote for the Libdems now is not like voting for Ralph Nader. By most polls they’re ahead of Labour in the popular vote.
7. I agree with Anthony Painter on his analysis of the difference betweeb liberalism and the left. And he’s right in saying Libdems are assuming that support for them goes deep and broad. It doesn’t, yet.
And so either we need a better electoral cleavage betweeb Labourism and Liberalism, or one party has to develop a tent that includes both. If Libdems have the aspiration to become the main opposition then it has to adopt elements of Labourism. If it won’t then Labour will come back and draw back that support as it has done in the past.
8. I said a few weeks ago the Left cannot abandon Labour. I still stick with that view because it was never about this election. That was about long-term strategy and thinking. New Labour is currently in doldrums because it’s lead by a leader with no vision and communication skills. He is surrounded by people who have had ideas and creativity beaten out of them.
Keeping them in power will only hasten the death of the Labour party and possibly the Labour Movement. I don’t want to see that happen. If it goes out of power – so be it; the party needs to earnestly start a renewal process by demanding that potential leaders lay out a vision for the future; not have more damn coronations.
What does “winning” even mean?
It seems to be that the story of last night will be that Cameron won the debate. I don’t agree with this, and though I move in obviously partisan circles I found it hard to find any significant number of people that would agree either. But then one thing is for certain, these polls are…whether we like it or not…the best thing we’ve got for gauging opinion. And they’re actually quite good at it.
So perhaps the bigger question here is “What do you mean by ‘won’?”.
Five polls were out last night, and you can see all their details here (all top line results are put handily in one post over at PoliticalBetting.com): Angus Reid, Populus, ICM, YouGov, and ComRes.
When looking into the polls these pollsters (except ComRes) didn’t just ask who won, they also asked questions like who performed best (a slightly different question from who won), who was strongest on certain subject, etc, etc. How did they turn out?
continue reading… »
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» The real agenda behind Telegraph’s abortion investigation
» How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists
» When disabled people want to work – employers can hold the back
» Revealed: the reality behind Workfare and why it doesn’t work
» Job snob? No, I’ve got the T-shirt
» Why country-by-country reporting matters to our wellbeing
» If Unions want to become stronger, they need to modernise
» Why work “reforms” in Spain are a warning for workers across Europe
» Five things you need to know about the NHS bill
» Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier. More Racist.
» Laziness levels in Britain getting lazier, wails government
|
62 Comments 15 Comments 23 Comments 8 Comments 24 Comments 19 Comments 16 Comments 83 Comments 203 Comments 85 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » pjt posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » the a&e charge nurse posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » the a&e charge nurse posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Chaise Guevara posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Chaise Guevara posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Oliver posted on Job snob? No, I've got the T-shirt » Brummie Protestor posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » the a&e charge nurse posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Hannah posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » mr_hopkinson posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Amy Finlayson posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » the a&e charge nurse posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pagar posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Oliver Conner posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Ferret Dave posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? |
