Jim Millen Rotating Header Image

May, 2010:

Nick Clegg: Not in a happy place…

If I was Nick Clegg now, I’d be stressed to the point of incoherence.  He is indeed in a position where his party can hold a real influence over national politics – but it’s far from the rosy situation polls were predicting last week.  None of his options seem appealing.

A Lib Dem coalition with the Conservatives would immediately alienate many to the left in the party, and would create a grave electoral threat in Labour/Lib Dem marginal seats.  However, this shape of coalition would hold a good working majority in Parliament and could get things done.  The public mood appears (and I use that cautiously!) to be slightly on the side of the Conservatives, so I reckon Clegg would be supported by most “non-partisan” voters.

An alliance with Labour, on the other hand, would be a much shakier arrangement.  The two parties alone would not command a majority in Parliament and would be forced to seek votes from minority and regional parties, who would no doubt demand special treatment in return.  The Lib Dems would also face annihilation in close Tory marginal seats, and would disgust those who thought they were voting to get Labour out of office.

So I suppose to some extent it comes down to the electoral maths – what would hurt the Lib Dems most, losing in Tory/LD or in Labour/LD marginals?  However, there’s also another couple of factors in the equation…

From the first leaders’ debate, Clegg’s image has been extremely shiny and he’s had a very warm reception from the electorate.  Now, however, that image is tarnishing rapidly – and will continue to do so the longer this haggling goes on.  He also hasn’t helped himself by appearing to go behind the Tories’ backs to deal with Labour, regardless of the realities of the situation.  The longer this drags out, the worse he looks – and, correspondingly, the lower his credibility becomes to carry his party with him.

The other factor is the reality of electoral reform.  Labour are making big promises now, but the truth is that any changes to our electoral system will almost certainly take years to implement.  And in a Labour-Lib Dem alliance, there almost certainly won’t be years to spare before they are forced to call another election – at which the Tories stand to win in a big way.

However, there is another option.

Having flirted with Labour, Clegg could well return to the Tories and agree to support them on a so-called “Confidence and Supply” arrangement.  This would not bind the LDs into a formal coalition – they would simply agree to support the Conservatives’ Queen’s Speech and budget, but could maintain freedom to oppose policies they disagree with.  This seems the only option that will preserve the LD’s integrity, and their chances of increasing seats in another election under the current system.

Cameron almost certainly wouldn’t budge on PR, under such an arrangement – and would probably not commit to a fixed term agreement.  This would mean that the Tories could set the date for the next election, potentially setting them up again for a big win.  But the Tories would have to take some very unpopular decisions, and yes, there will be cuts.  Staying out of a formal coalition may give the Lib Dems just enough distance from these decisions, and a principled stance of “support the bare minimum, in the national interest” might just win them greater support.  It’s a big gamble though.

None the less, I can’t see any better options for Clegg right now – although even this carries the risk he will be seen as indecisive and sitting on the fence!  Not a happy place to be at all…

Debunking election fallacies, Part 1

Hello again.  Think I was a little burned out on politics after Thursday night and Friday, hence no posts over the weekend!  Anyway – we’re now in the depths of the squalid horse trading that was inevitable with a hung parliament.  I have many thoughts on the matter but, for now, I’m just going to post a rebuttal of a few fallacies flying around and contributing to the furious spinning that have really got on my nerves.

1)  A Labour – Liberal Democrat alliance would have legitimacy due to share of popular vote!

Oh dear, where to begin?  Many seem to think that as Labour and Lib-Dem votes added together exceed those cast for the Tories, then this gives legitimacy to a Lib-Lab “Progressive Alliance”.  Errrrm… No.  Our democracy is not based on popular vote, but on seats in the House of Commons.  The Lib-Lab seats added together would not have a working majority in the Commons, and would be forced to rely on regional minority parties to pass legislation.

Now, by all means this could be taken as an indication we need a more proportional voting system – fair comment.  But this election is running according to the current rules.

2)  The majority of people voted against the Tories, so they shouldn’t get into power!

Even more nonsensical.  By that argument, an even greater majority voted against Labour, so they shouldn’t get into power either.  There seems to be a lot of confusion around this “Progressive Alliance” concept.  Many people are assuming that because both Labour and the Lib-Dems are left-wing-ish, and the Tories are right-wing-ish, then it makes more sense for Labour and the Lib-Dems to work together – right?

Well, no.  All three parties are pretty close to the centre ground – there’s nothing like as much differentiation as there used to be.  Sure, Labour & Lib Dems share some values – but so do the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.  Having said they share values, the three parties are all different in philosophy, worldview, and policies.  If I was a Lib Dem right now, I’d be pretty irritated to just get lumped in with Labour automatically.

So much for the “natural progressive alliance” idea.

3)  It doesn’t matter that we haven’t elected our Prime Minister!

This first reared its ugly head when Gordon Brown first became PM.  It’s true that in the UK, by convention the leader of the party in government becomes the PM, and is not elected in their own right as PM – they merely have to be elected as an MP.

(In the past, they didn’t even have to be that.  Up until the early 20th century, PMs were relatively often unelected members of the House of Lords.)

(Edit:  Ooops, I forgot about Lord Home, chosen as PM from the Lords in 1963.  However, he was previously an elected MP, and subsequently renounced his peerage and stood as an MP in a by-election to give him legitimacy as PM.)

Due to this electoral quirk, as when Blair resigned, it’s entirely possible and correct for a PM to be selected according to the rules of their party constitution, without any direct mandate from the electorate.  Again this is something we might want to review, but under current rules that’s how it works!

If you’ve been hiding under a rock and not heard, Brown has now said he will step down as PM – presumably to make the idea of a Lib-Lab alliance more palatable to the Lib Dems.  Again, this is all strictly speaking OK by the conventions of Parliament.  He has said that he will give way to another leader of the Labour party chosen according to their rules.

However… This means that at a time of great economic turbulence, whilst we are at war in Afghanistan, the country would once again be led by somebody who has not even led their party through a General Election and won the right to form a government.  As with the MPs’ expenses, this may be within the rules, but it’s not right.  The person a party selects as its leader says an awful lot about that party, and we the public deserve to know who will be running the show when we vote.

So, strictly speaking this isn’t a fallacy – there isn’t anything by the rules wrong with David Miliband, Ed Balls or anybody else taking over as PM following a Labour party leadership contest.  But I cannot think of much that would do more to anger and disillusion the British public than having yet another PM who has never won a General Election.

That’s one piece of electoral reform I’d wholeheartedly support – some way to give the public a referendum on choice of PM if this doesn’t happen at a General Election.

That’s probably enough for now!  I’m sure more will emerge over days to come – if you have a particular pet hate political fallacy, why not drop me a comment?

When the conventional wisdom… isn’t so wise!

0330 in the morning and sleep deprivation is setting in.  But if this election is showing anything, it’s that the existing polling models will need substantial work after this election.  Ironically the final result may end up quite close to the exit poll, through chance rather than science!

The real flaw seems to be the breakdown of the relationship between national vote-share trends and local constituency results.  This relationship was always a bit strained but now appears to have no relevance to the results at all.

So I reckon in future GE polls will have to look a lot more closely at sampling results within constituency boundaries.  It’s going to make polling a lot more complicated…

An amusing side effect of all this during this evening has been that for much of the BBC coverage, many highly skilled (and paid) pundits and pollsters have been forced to cover up they don’t have a clue what’s happening, either.  Priceless!

Newbury HOLD for Tories – and a triumph for Twitter!

Well, thanks to Nigel Morgan and Twitter, I’ve now found out that Newbury constituency has been held by the Conservative candidate Richard Benyon as per Nigel’s tweet below:

Nigel_Morgan Conservatives hold #Newbury. Benyon 33,057 votes. Rendel, Lib Dem, 20,809

That’s a huge swing back to the Tories – so it doesn’t seem the Clegg effect has changed much in Newbury after all!

More comment on this later – will just note though that Twitter got the result out a lot quicker than the traditional media!

Congratulations to Benyon and his team – commiserations to the other candidates.

Election day reform?

Seems many people haven’t been able to vote today for a number of reasons.  Some are unfortunate but understandable, whilst others are more worrying – including some places running out of ballot papers!

It sounds as though part of this is down to turnout exceeding expectation – a good thing!  But not so good if the infrastructure of the election can’t accommodate it.  To their credit, the Electoral Commission have already promised a full investigation.

So what should they do differently next time around?

For a start, getting the administrative details wrong is unforgivable.  Nobody should be turned away because paper lists of registered voters have not been updated, or find that there are not enough ballot papers.

I also think there’s going to have to be some review of opening hours for polling stations.  It will be hard to organise, but maybe opening for 24 hours, from say 0600 one morning, would make more sense?  There’ll also the perennial option of weekend voting…

One thing I’ve not seen much mention of is communication to voters.  Here in Newbury, there’s not been all that much information sent out from the electoral officials or the council – were I not a politics junkie, I could easily have missed it!  People need better and clearer advice on both registering to vote, and practical tips for the day – such as arriving in plenty of time.

With my geek hat on I’m curious how new technologies could help us out with this.  Obviously authentication is a huge issue, but wouldn’t it be nice if we could have some sort of online voting?  Or at least use some more social technologies to communicate with the electorate!

Whatever happens – I think there’ll be huge demand for this to change next time around.

Election Night

After an odd and frenetic four weeks of campaigning, election night is finally here.  Just over three hours until the polls close, and we’re in for the normal hurry-up-and-wait TV coverage as results trickle in from constituencies around the country.

As the sad politics geek I so clearly am, I’ll be staying up through the night to keep up with events – did this for the US elections back in 2008 so can clearly do no less for my own national elections!  I’ll be posting about anything I find especially interesting on here and tweeting on @jimmillen

Do get involved and @ reply or leave a comment here, if you’re also staying up – be great to hear from you!

Right – now off to Sainsburys to lay in supplies of food, coffee and Red Bull.  Think I’ll just have time for a power nap before the TV coverage really gets started…

On Rupert Murdoch…

Look, I don’t like Rupert Murdoch much, OK?  I’m no apologist for his monopoly building or for the aggressive way in which Sky TV has muscled in on the rights for many sports events.  I don’t agree with him about the forthcoming paywalls on his newspaper websites.  Most of all, Fox News… Dear Lord, nothing can excuse Fox News.

But let’s be very clear about this; Murdoch will support what’s good for Murdoch.  He more than anyone is no idealogue but a brutal, ruthless pragmatist.  Not a very nice man, all in all – but pretty much guaranteed to do what’s in his own best interests.  Sometimes this is to support right-wing politicians – but not always.

It seems to have slipped a lot of peoples’ minds in the recent UK election campaign that in the past three elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005, Murdoch’s media outlets were either neutral or supported Labour.  He has spent just as much time courting senior Labour figures as he has Conservative – like any businessman, he is covering all his bases.

So by all means let’s discuss disclosure and illumination of the murky and dubious practices of lobbying and media influence on Government.  But can we please stop trying to claim that voting Tory will somehow hand the country over to Murdoch?  He will have no more influence than he did on Mandleson or Blair – too much, perhaps, but not something that splits along party lines.

Get out and vote!

126/365

A little late in the day perhaps, but a reminder that you should go and vote!  Polls are open till 2200 in most places, so make the most of it & exercise your democratic right.  No matter who you vote for, make sure your voice is heard.