Voting and Labour in 2015

I came across a fascinating blog by the Economist which led me to this page by YouGov's Anthony Wells; it analyses the voting habits by the public since 2012, and crucially indicates how their habits change over time.

For Ed Miliband the Labour leader, there are many problems - but perhaps the main one is that people who had supported Labour are moving their support to the SNP, UKIP and Green.

Look at for example, 2012:

Movement of voters. Picture credit: UK Polling Report

and compare it to 2014:

Movement of voters. Picture credit: UK Polling Report

Great for any G and P student wondering about party support in the next election, and also about the similarities / differences between political parties and their ideas.

Although the Conservative party are clearly losing out to UKIP, they are essentially stable because of the voters who used to vote Conservative and said they would not vote are turning instead to UKIP.

Marginal Constituencies in the UK

This article on the BBC web-site caught my eye; it is analysis of the effect marginal constituencies have on the behaviour of voters and on political parties.

Cooee! Major politicians go campaigning in marginals.
Picture credit: BBC.

In short, marginals decide elections. Political parties target those constituencies which are most crucial, and don't bother in seats that are safe. If the seat is safe for the other side any money spent is wasted. If the seat is safe for your party, why spend the money unnecessarily?

You can tell a seat is marginal if major politicians come calling asking for your vote.

The 2015 election is likely to be very tight and so seats like Luton south will probably see large amounts of money spent there by the parties; in 2010 parties spent £3.07 per vote (or a total of almost £130,000 between 12 parties).

The article mentions a report by the Centre for policy studies which suggested that 85% of seats are either marginal or have a good chance of their MP changing at the next election. Incidentally the report is also about voting reform, or as the title of the report has it "The evaporating case for electoral reform".

Great for G & P students contemplating the nature of elections and the importance of marginal constituencies. In addition, the idea that so many constituencies are marginal does suggest that the current electoral system is working and doesn't lead to democratic inertia. G & P students could usefully tie this to the fact that even under FPTP there is a coalition government rather than simply a single-party government.

Labour and the Unions

Briefly, there is a row over the Labour Party's candidate in Falkirk and how much influence the Unions have over this candidate's selection. It of course raises issues for the Labour Party about its links with the unions.

Of interest to G&P students contemplating the political ideas and beliefs of the Labour party (the Unite Union would like the party to be more socialist), and how candidates are selected by the local parties.

Ed Miliband's solution seems to be reducing the link between the members of a union and them being given Labour Party membership.

Clearly there is an issue here about political participation, and the effectiveness of Britain's political system in a situation where there is a falling membership of political parties.

As ever, the BBC's Nick Robinson has some interesting stuff to say about the whole thing here.

[Picture Credit - BBC News]

First entry to Downing St

Just because one can, here are videos of recent PMs entering Downing St for the first time. First up, Mrs Thatcher from 1979:



A clip about Tony Blair's entry into Downing St in 1997 (sadly, I haven't yet found a clip of Blair's triumphalist entry into Downing St with a large flag-waving crowd):



David Cameron enters Downing St on 11th May 2010:



And, just because it shows the relationship between Nick Clegg and David Cameron, this short clip from the PM and the DPM's first joint news conference together:

Gerrymandering and elections

While I am in the mode, this has just cropped up - I've mentioned primary elections already, and the tendency for parties to get out their base, and for successful candidates to have to pander to the most blue-or-red-blooded members of their party to get nomination. This is especially noticeable with Republicans and the Tea Party movement.

Lost of graphs to gawp at in this article, but the main point is that the primaries are the real contest in the vast majority of safe seats in both the House and the Senate; the actual public "general" election merely rubber-stamps the choice by the party in the safe seat.

Without the party primaries, rational choice among voters, even in gerrymandered districts, would produce more centrist winners. But in the vast majority of utterly safe districts, only one party's primary winner matters in the general. The primary is thus the real election, and a contest only to see who can turn out more of their red- or blue-faced partisan faithful.

The Senate produces figures who are not only closer to the centre but who have the security of a six-year term. Thus many of us can name senators known for crossing party lines, and thus name bills with sponsors from both sides of the aisle: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, Kerry-Graham-Lieberman... Few of us can name comparable independent House members or truly bipartisan bills. Strict party-line votes have always been rarer in the Senate than in the House.

The re-election rates, especially in the House, are extraordinary and make politicians risk-averse. Useful for G&P students contemplating any question asking about the effectiveness of Congress

I agree with Nick... I agree with Nick

The general consensus is that Nick Clegg had a very good debate with Brown and Cameron for example, here and here - there is a debate to be had about how expectations can lead to a result (expectations of Clegg were by and large low so when he had a better debate than Cameron, who has been perceived as a great orator and debator, then he is the winner), or how the debate itself was hampered by a highly restrictive set of rules.

Overall, I think Clegg played the "I'm not the same as the other guys" line well. Cameron was good, but was hindered by over-cautiousness (being so concerned about making sure that he did not make a blunder that he lost most of his spontaneity and verve). Brown couldn't stop fidgeting, sounded too much like a bureacrat, and did not make eye-contact with the audience or the viewer. Better than expected then - as a result, he has been seen in some quarters as having a very good evening.

The key reason for bringing this all up is that it is unclear what impact these debates will have on the election. There is the possibility that a swing to the Lib-Dems (assuming nothing changes between now and the election - a very unlikely scenario) will impact key marginal constituencies which are Lib-Tory, but will have an uncertain effect on Lab-Lib marginals. Everything else being equal, left-leaning pro-LibDem voters will put their tick in the box of whichever party will keep out the Tories.

Brown's shameless wooing of Clegg on prime-time TV shows how concerned he is by the prospect of a hung parliament to encourage LibDem voters to help Labour by ganging up on the Conservatives. It also reminds us of how close the two parties are in many ways given their history, and recent policies (see my previous post for links).

In terms of G&P students, all useful stuff for any question asking about how minor parties can increase their support / vote / profile (go on the TV in prime-time debating with the leaders of the two biggest parties and do well).

Don't forget, of course, there are the other national TV debates too, in which the multi-party systems of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament get to face up against eachother. Again, more publicity and coverage (not to mention equal billing) for smaller and minor parties.

Nor should I ignore the BNP's invitation to appear on Question Time earlier in the year - as a result of a seat in the European elections they have become a party representing a constituency so their ideas should be tested in a public forum. Again - a minor party gains a seat that in turn helps to increase their profile, which may lead to more votes.

That's not to ignore the very serious possibility that the BNP benefited in the European elections from an anti-politics mood among voters in the UK. In this election this mood is likely to benefit UKIP too, that is if Nick Clegg can't be the anti-politician politician.