Google Ads


Site Stats

Analyzing Britain's 2010 General Election

by: Inoljt

Tue May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM EDT


By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Several days ago Great Britain held a general election to decide the country's government over the next few years. Facing discontent and a nation thirsty for change, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the governing Labor Party were soundly defeated. The challenging Conservative Party, led by David Cameroon, gained 97 seats but failed to take a majority in Parliament. Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats, who had surged after a strong performance in the first debate by their leader Nick Clegg, badly underperformed their expectations.

This election offers a useful study of a political system outside of the United States. While more similar to the United States than most countries, Great Britain's electorate also offers a number of intriguing differences.

A map of the results illustrates several aspects of this system:

Analyzing Britain's 2010 General Election

Note: In Britain and most of the world, the party of the left - Labour - is traditionally represented by the color red (symbolizing the revolution and the so-called blood of the workers). The Conservatives are represented by blue; the Liberal Democrats by yellow.

More below.

Inoljt :: Analyzing Britain's 2010 General Election
At first, it seems that the Tories swept the board. One can't help but notice the sheer landmass covered by conservative-won seats.

Indeed, the Conservative Party did do quite well; with 36.1% of the vote, they won 306 out of 650 seats. Labour dropped to 29.0% and 258 seats; the Liberal Democrats took 57 seats on 23.0% of the vote.

Yet the map overstates Tory strength. Like the Republican Party of the United States, the Conservative Party does best in rural areas. Winning these seats looks good on a map but doesn't guarantee winning an election.

The Labour Party, on the other hand, has traditionally dominated Great Britain's densely populated cities - much like the Democrats in the United States. Much of its base lies among cities such as Sunderland, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and - of course - London. These places look small on maps but elect quite a lot of MPs.

To illustrate this point, here is a map of the 2005 general election under redrawn boundaries for 2010:

Analyzing Britain's 2010 General Election,Analyzing Britain's 2010 General Election

Labour did quite a bit better in 2005, as this map indicates. Yet one might be inclined to guess, by the geographic spread of Conservative seats, that they lost the election. In reality, Prime Minister Tony Blair had led his party to win 35.3% of the vote and 356 seats - a governing majority.

Interestingly, Labour majorities in cities tend to be somewhat thinner than Tory majorities in the countryside. This constitutes the opposite of the situation in the United States - where Democrats often win cities by 75-25 margins and Republicans win rural regions by 60-40  margins.

A proportional map, therefore, offers a more accurate visualization:

Analyzing Britain's 2010 General Election,Analyzing Britain's 2010 General Election

One sees another interesting pattern emerge here; the electorate exhibits a coherent North-South divide. In the poorer North Labour does quite well, winning a good majority of seats. In the wealthier South the Conservatives are dominant. With the exception of London, Labour wins almost no seats in southern Great Britain.

There is also a substantial difference between England, Scotland, and Wales. While England votes strongly Conservative, the latter two remain Labour strongholds. In Scotland the Tories actually come in fourth, winning only one seat - a legacy of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who to this day remains extraordinarily unpopular in Scotland. Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Scottish heritage also probably also helped Labour and hurt the Tories. While the Conservatives do better in Wales, winning eight seats, they still run ten points behind Labour.

It is in South England where the Conservatives do best. Labour runs in third place in the Southwest, Southeast, and East regions. In the Southeast region, for instance, Labour wins a mere 16.2% of the vote; the Tories win 49.9% of it.

These patterns go back for a long time. Take the 1955 general election:

Analyzing Britain's 2010 General Election

There are some differences, for sure. In 1955 Conservatives had a base in rural Scotland; that has vanished today. The strength of third parties is noticeably less.

Yet what strikes the eye is the degree of similarity between 1955 and 2010. By and large, the bases of the Labour and Conservative Parties remain the same as they were half a century ago. Britain's regions exhibit a remarkable degree of stability in which party they support - something which can not be said for the United States.

Finally, perhaps the most interesting difference between the United States and the United Kingdom is the strength of third parties in the latter. Both countries follow a first-past-the-post system, which makes the presence of a non-regional third party almost impossible. Yet in Great Britain the Liberal Democrats have somehow managed to gain legitimacy and a respectable amount of seats, through careful targeting. In the aftermath of this election, with a hung parliament, there has even been substantial discussion about changing the electoral system. Meanwhile the two-party system remains iron strong in America. Despite all their similarities, cultural and systemic, the electorates of the United States and the United Kingdom are following sharply divergent paths.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Thank you for this analysis
Looks like the traditional swing region between Labour and Conservative is sort of in the middle of England. The LibDem gains in the SW were spreading in '05.

I wonder if there's a map where each of the three parties are not competitive, e.g. the Conservatives in the North, and Labour in the SW/South.


Anybody have any idea
what's up with the Lib Dems' strength in the South West, especially Cornwall? That part of the country's pretty bucolic, and based on how the rest of the rural parts perform, seems like it should be Tory... and most of the other Lib Dem seats seem to be educated white-collar urban areas and college towns. Is Cornwall known for a sort of rural bohemianism, like say western Massachusetts?

[ Parent ]
Cornwall
Cornwall's part of the Celtic fringe, where the old Liberal party declined but never quite died out whereas mid-20th century it was out of the picture in the rest of the UK....

[ Parent ]
One thing that irks me.
Is that, despite hearing how Cameron got the most seats and should be entitled to live at Downing Street, no one seems to be saying that Labour and the Liberal Democrats collectively got a majority of the vote.  Add in the other left parties: the Greens, for example, and it's even bigger.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

They didn't.
Labour's 258 + Lib Dem's 57 = 315, 11 votes shy of a majority.  They did collectively win more seats than the Tories though, if that's what you mean.

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
No, a majority of the vote, not of the seats
Labour + Liberal Democrats + Greens + SNP + Plaid Cymru + Alliance + Respect + SDLP = about 55%

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Gotcha.
My reading comprehension skills are on fire today!

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

[ Parent ]
No problem


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Looking the UK coalition from European ideologic standards.
From the left to the right we have:

005 Sinn Fein (Northern Ireland)
001 Green Party
003 Social Democratic and Labour Party (Northern Ireland)
258 Labour Party
003 Plaid Cymru (Wales)
006 Scotish National Party (Scottland)

057 Liberal Democrats
001 Alliance of Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland)

306 Conservative and Unionist Party
001 Independent Unionist (Northern Ireland)
008 Democratic Unionist Party (Northern Ireland)

650 Total (326 for have majority)

Obviously the Liberal Democrats decide the new government.

Looking the issue with european ideological standards the current coalition between LibDems and conservatives is more natural than looking with US political standards.

This link to a german website give us a precise ideological identification of the UK political parties:

http://www.parties-and-electio...

UK

We can see in this image like UK conservatives have a liberal component inside. This is so habitual in the european right. In many countries liberal and conservative groups form the party of the right. In other countries they are governments between conservative and liberal parties like the new government of the UK. But they are too in some countries coalitions between social democrat parties and other centrist and liberal groups.

Social Democracy is center-left in european standards.
The third way is left but very near the center in european standards.
Social-liberalism is center in european standards.
Liberalism is center-right in european standards.

A government of the Labour Party with LibDems and external support of some nationalist groups of left (because habitually nationalist parties want not to be in the government) would be a left leaning government in economic issues and federal leaning government in the country management issues. I think would be a better government for the UK than a coalition between LibDems and conservatives.


[ Parent ]
Obviously there's a lot of variation within that
Sinn Fein has some pretty left-wing positions, but doesn't trade on those too much. Indeed, when they tried to go properly socialist and drop the Catholic nationalist element, they split and the results (particularly the Official/Provisional IRA split) sparked the Troubles. Nowadays they've moderated somewhat, as governing responsibilities in Northern Ireland have brought more managerialists elements to the fore.

Of course, that doesn't especially matter, since they refuse to take seats at Westminster (but do claim expenses!)

Labour obviously has a huge range. It has some who are little better than working-class crypto-Tories, an awful lot with very few social-democratic roots, but then a big 'democratic left' bloc of MPs and a far amount of loud and proud socialists. Third way politics has led the way, but not eradicated the other tendencies within the party.

Plaid is socialism with a Welsh flavour, because it's hard to get elected with anything else in Wales, but the SNP are more nuanced. Sometimes they emphasise left-wing credentials, sometimes nationalism. And there are divisions within the party around which one should dominate.

And of course there are deep fissures within the Tories. The major one is Europe, where most of the party has been trying to force out 'wets' and pro-Europeans for years, but hasn't yet succeeded entirely - although inten years it will have done. Then there's the libertarian/authoritarian divide, the moralist/modernist divide and an economic hardliner/economic moderate split. Right now Cameron tends towards anti-European, libertarian, modernist but economically hardline policies, although he's not especially ideologically centred, so that may change. I don't think the parliamentary party will change around him though, as there's a lot of grumbling in the ranks from diehard Thatcherites.


[ Parent ]
Tory success in downtown London
I'm amazed at how the Conservatives perform so well in central London and Westminster. I know these are wealthy areas, but still, the thought of a Republican holding, say, Jerry Nadler's NY-08 is just bizarre.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

You gotta remember those were probably plurality wins.
If you were to see how those constituencies (to use the British term) voted on a liberal vs. conservative basis by aggregating the votes for the liberal candidates (e.g. Labour, Green, Liberal Democrat) for the conservative candidates, things may look quite different.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Cities of London and Westminster
was a majority win for Tory Mark Field. It's a very, very conservative seat in innermost London, populated largely by bankers.

[ Parent ]
Ah, ok.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
New York's silk stocking district
Carolyn Maloney defeated a Republican to represent Manhattan's Upper East Side in 1992... but that does show how much things have changed since then.  

[ Parent ]
The Republican party could win that seat again
if it became the Mike Bloomberg party.

So long as Democrats are the pro-choice party, and Republicans are not, that's never going to happen.


[ Parent ]
social conservatism
British politics aren't dominated to nearly the same degree (if at all) by social conservatism.... Imagine a Republican party that was still dominated by the Rockefeller wing (anti-tax for sure, but not crazy on other things) and one could easily imagine them winning all the Long Island/Westchester type seats, Cook County suburbs, etc., as well as the Silk Stocking District... By contrast, imagine the Democrats to be a far more working-class oriented party than it has been (even New Labour was tribally still very working-class), and areas like Western PA or Appalachian Ohio would clearly still be electing Democrats...

Although nearly all the Anglophone countries in the world follow first-past-the-post (US, Canada, etc.), particular differences in the political cultures of the individual countries matter a great deal!


[ Parent ]
sounds a lot like the 1970s to me
jimmy carter and gerald ford

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)

[ Parent ]
Yup
It's pretty much what American politics would look like if we didn't have a deep south.

[ Parent ]
I like this...
Cameron isn't your Daddy's Tory and Brown was one of the architects of New Labour. Clegg was a bit more centrist than Paddy Ashdown or Charlie Kennedy....  And now that Cameron and Clegg are in coalition together for seemingly the next five years, I wonder where the Labour Party will go while in opposition?  Since 1) nature abhors a vacuum; 2) the cuts to the deficit will be painful; and 3) the Liberal Democrats will likely pay a political price in propping up the Tories in Scotland, Wales, and northern England, my guess is that it will head leftward again as if New Labour never happened at all.  But who knows?  A fortnight ago, everyone was assuming that Labour under Brown was finished, that they would be in third place.  That didn't happen!

[ Parent ]
The coalition won't last that long
certainly not five years - but it will last as long as it takes to get to the AV+ referendum.

Once the referendum is voted upon, then the LDs will be ready to quit, having gotten their leaders actual experience in governing.


[ Parent ]
Nope
Part of the agreement is a fixed term parliament. May 2015. Unless the government loses a confidence vote. And also part of the agreement is to increase the threshold to 55% of parliament. It could happen but it isn't as nailed on to fail quickly as some think.

[ Parent ]
I'm not convinced that's enforceable
While party discipline is significantly stronger in the UK, there will be situations that will cause quite a bit of heartburn among backbenchers of both parties. Most of those will be budgetary, and I think most if not all budgetary bills can lead to confidence motions.

(though most of my knowledge of UK Parlimentary mechanics comes from "First Among Equals" so some of that could be false.)


[ Parent ]
First Amongst Equals is not that accurate
Archer may have been an MP, but he was primarily a fiction writer and secondarily a crook. Some liberties were taken with the truth (and the American version changed it further, as it was believed that Americans would not be able to understand a three-party system.)

There are certain issues where the Lib Dems have been given carte blanche to vote again, and several more where they'll merely abstain. The problem is that the coalition is taking advantage of our unwritten constitution by declaring that it will refuse to regard those cases as confidence motions.


[ Parent ]
You say assuming, I say hoping
Cleggmania was a classic bounce and had already settled down considerably by a week before the election. Although they underperformed the final polls, everybody but one (rather off-the-wall) pollster had the Lib Dems in second just before the election.

The reason certain commentators were still predicting Labour would finish third and then fall into a precipitous decline leading to its disappearance as a separate party is that that's what these commentators have always wanted.

This article is a classic example. It's our equivalents of David Broder and co. They just really object to the idea of a party that has as its primary focus the working class.


[ Parent ]
Question for Englishlefty
There's a perception among many in the netroots that the LD is (now) further to the left Labour. At least that's what I read when I see some of the DK diaries of the election.

I don't think that's really true - while they're certainly more anti-war / sensible on defense than Labour, some LD policies seem far too free marketish for that to be the case. And the pro-Europe LD tendency seems analogous to the free trade "who cares about local industry" types here.

I'd be interested in your opinion on the topic.


[ Parent ]
They're liberals, not leftists
I'm  a card-carrying Labour Party member and recently stood as a city council candidate in Cambridge (a Lib Dem-Labour marginal, although we were actually narrowly beaten into third by the Tories, most likely because their base stopped tactically voting Lib Dem and a lot of Green supporters tactically voted Lib Dem, but I digress.) So I can't claim absolute neutrality here. Not only am I biased in favour of the Labour Party, but the Lib Dems are the major enemy here - the Tories have only one councillor out of 42, whereas the Lib Dems have 29 - and they're famously dirty local campaigners, so I have no reason to love them.

That said, I think it's fairly hard to deny that:

a) The Lib Dem leadership has previous been further to the 'left' economically. I don't mean issues like abortion and homosexuality - there's not that much difference between us there and if Labour is behind there, it's because of MPs in areas like Liverpool and Glasgow where it's hard to get selected unless you vote the Vatican line on social issues. We're talking issues of privacy and the like. The Lib Dems take a classic anti-state interference stance - they're opposed to ID cards and government databases, they don't like ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders, restrictions placed on those making a nuisance of themselves without necessarily committing a criminal offence), they opposed government anti-terror legislation like control orders and 90-day detention and they object to government plans to keep DNA of all those accused of a crime, whether or not they're convicted.

Labour's view is much less libertarian here. By 'Labour' I mean the Brown and Blair governments, as there's much more disagreement amongst ordinary members and to a certain degree amonst backbenchers - some of these issues saw the largest government revolts of all. The government has backed ID cards and databases, it views ASBOs as important tools in keeping neighbourhoods liveable (this disagreement is probably mostly related to the different social bases of Labour and the Lib Dems), it campaigned on an expansion of our prison estate to 96,000 places and it went for anti-terror legislation somewhat along the lines of Obama's position (although obviously with a multiplicity of differences in the details).

b) Economically the Labour Party tends to be further to the left and is much more populist. Labour grew out of the trade unions and still maintains close links with them. It views itself as the defender of the working classes. It therefore tried to increase the incomes of low- and middle-earners through tax credits and introducing the minimum wage. It fought this election on increasing the minimum wage in real terms every year and on fighting cuts to tax credits and child trust funds (a measure to give every child a degree of liquid assets).

It takes an economically activist view and invested heavily over its time in government. It doubled the NHS budget and also poured money into schools and other services. On the down side, the leadership pushed PFI (against the strenuous objections of the membership) whereby private companies put up the money for new infrastructure, and then lease it back to government at inflated costs for twenty-five years, when the government takes possession.

The Lib Dems come from a much more laissez-faire and middle-class tradition. Whilst they have campaigned for higher taxes for the rich in the not too distant past, the current leadership dislikes the idea (especially since Labour actually did it) and instead pushes for tax cuts. Their big idea was raising the tax threshhold to £10,000. Although they sold it as help to the poor, if you crunch the numbers you find out it's regressive. It's now a coalition priority, but the only progressive elements (certain extra taxes on the super rich) have been removed, so it's now obscenely regressive.

Truth is, Lib Dems just don't care about poverty that much, because it's not where they come from. Their membership is middle-class, what in America you might call wine-track. Labour is much more beer-track and our heartlands are poor areas, so fixing that is much more of a priority for us.

The Lib Dems used to suggest moving the NHS from single-payer to an insurance system, although they're keeping quiet about that now that they've realised how unpopular that idea is. They're the most enthusiastic party for cuts and much of the leadership are classic free marketeers of the scariest sort in a recession. The thought of George Osborne and David Laws having control over the Treasury is terrifying.

c) Labour voters (and indeed members) did not like the Iraq war. About half the Labour Party tore up their membership cards in protest. Labour MPs, however, voted in favour - largely out of loyalty and trust in Blair, and because he threatened to resign if he didn't get a majority of the parliamentary Labour Party voting in favour of war.

Lib Dems opposed it to a man, and reaped the benefits at the 2005 election.

d) Lib Dems are pro-Europe. This is because they're a middle class intellectual party, with members more likely to know another language, to have spent time abroad and to have appreciated the benefits of Europe. It's also because they have very little problem with the EU's innate neo-liberalism or its endemic corruption.

Labour under the present leadership is pretty pro-Europe, but certain sections remain suspicious of it. Mostly this is because of the above two problems, but it's also partly because Europe to our voters is more likely to mean eastern European migrants being employed by businesses looking to cut costs.

e) The Lib Dems are in coalition with the Tories. We would rather leap into boiling tar than go into coalition with the Tories.

To simplify the above into two slightly misleading sentences: The Lib Dems are New Democrats. Labour are union Democrats.

To simplify even further: The Lib Dems are in coalition with the Tories. This makes them Tories.

As I said, I make no pretence at neutrality. Everything we've ever said about them being smug, patronising know-it-alls with no understanding or interest in understanding what life is really like for those on low incomes has just been proved true. I look forward to decimating their representation all over the country. The only shame is that in the meantime the bastards have given us a Tory government to wreck things all over again.


[ Parent ]
Thank you. It's helpful to have a pure Labour perspective
FYI, I may refer to your semi-treatise in the future.

To oversimplify things in the US context, the current LD/Tory coalition sounds like

Gary Hart          = Nick Clegg
Nelson Rockefeller = David Cameron
Hubert Humphrey    = the next Labour party leader?

aka Napa Valley Liberals in coalition w/noblesse oblige Republicans through the 1970s

v.

Labour returning somewhat to its roots - but not as far as Arthur Scargill or Tony Benn. But it seems to me that Labour could use a 21st century "happy warrior" of the working class.

What you say also explains to me why the LDs are so appealing to the netroots here (though that may change with the coalition)

IMO, what you say would make for an excellent DK diary, something that could give a lot of us more perspective on our own political situation.


[ Parent ]
Thanks for your excellent analysis and perspective here
Too often in the United States, "liberal" and "leftist" are taken to mean the same thing, or "leftist" just means "more liberal", when there are important, largely class-based differences between them.

That's one of the things that drives me crazy listening to any Democrat running for President in the last 30 years (even President Obama) -- they talk, especially in debates, as if everyone makes $75,000 a year and lives at the end of a suburban cul-de-sac.  

Another question for you -- who will be (and/or who do you think should be) the next Labour leader?


[ Parent ]
I enjoyed reading that
Until the final paragraph. The only "smug, patronising know-it-alls" I see are all Labour politicians but what do I know.

[ Parent ]
You're talking about cabinet members
I'm talking about ordinary party members and local councillors with that.

Trust me. I don't think there's much danger of it, but never go to a Cambridge City Council meeting. Never meet our local MP. For that matter, never go to a dinner party organised by somebody whose passionate about famines in Burma but pays their cleaner medium wage. That's the sort of thing I mean.

None of which is to say that there aren't an awful lot of prominent smug and patronising Labour politicians. All I can tell you is that we're doing our best to marginalise them and stop their replacements ascending the greasy pole.


[ Parent ]
This is really great analysis
It's definitely helped my understanding of British politics and how it works.

From what I've read, it seems to me though that Tony Blair won a lot of his victories by moving away from the union, working-class perception of Labour into "wine-track" and suburban territory (kind of like Bill Clinton). Although it still seems that, despite this, Labour today is a lot more working-class based than the Democratic Party today (that probably has a lot to do with race).

http://mypolitikal.com/


[ Parent ]
Pretty true
Traditionally Labour's core is big cities, Scotland, Wales and the north (which is heavily urbanised anyway). Not coincidentally, these are bits of the country that were most screwed by Thatcher, so the Tories are even worse off here than they used to be, whilst the Lib Dems generally only get the upscale/student constituencies in these areas.

Then to get a majority we win smaller southern cities, midland towns and a couple of rural-urban mix constituencies in regions where we're already fairly strong.

Blair won those in 1997, sure, and indeed the districts we held in 2005 largely conform to this mould. But he also won conservative-leaning dormitory towns (Hemel Hempstead, Romford, the north Kent marginals), outer suburbs (Enfield Southgate etc.) and even a few rural areas (such as North West Norfolk and Wyre Forest) where the Conservatives got particularly unpopular. And he did that partly by running against an absolute joke of a government, but largely by suggesting that Labour had changed and by making verboten mention of the word 'socialist' or anything suggesting that we were there to help the poor.

Blair's government still helped the poor, of course, if less than previous Labour governments. It just refused to admit it for fear of sounding left-wing.

As to Blair not changing Labour - partly it's because we grew to hate him more than anybody else, partly it's because some never trusted him to begin with, partly it's because of the unions, partly it's because of all the MPs who got their start before him and partly it's because dammit, one party has to stand up for the interests of those who really need a government on their side.

But no, I don't think it's race. I think it's that in America you shut down socialism before it got into the nation's bloodstream. Here it became part of the body politic. And whilst elites will naturally resist socialism, once it's in it's hard to kill the tradition entirely, much as Blair would have liked to.


[ Parent ]
I'm interested
the English election system seems pretty close to the one we use here in the United States where whoever has the most votes wins, but in that case, why can the Liberal Democrats and several other smaller parties have a presence in parliament where here in the US, the Republicans and the Democrats have sucked up all the oxygen and locked out the smaller parties.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
I am not from the UK but I would bet that has something
to do with the greater amount of public financing of elections, limits on campaign expenditures by outside groups, and much less populous individual constituencies.  

[ Parent ]
Several reasons
Firstly, the Lib Dems did not emerge ex nihilo. They were formed by the remnant of the Liberals and the SDP, which broke off from Labour in the early 1980s. So they had some seats and therefore some infrastructure.

Secondly, we have small constituencies of less than 100,000 people which are drawn by an impartial body. They tend to conform to a fairly coherent geographical area. It's therefore easy to get your message out.

It's even easier when you consider that constituencies are made up of local council wards, which have somewhere between 5 and 10 thousand residents as a general rule. It's easier to get a third party candidate in here and indeed in some parts of the country the Lib Dems established themselves by beating the independents who had tended to monopolise rural district council seats. Ballot access is also easy - you only need ten signatures, whether it's local council or parliament you're running for.

Add in strict election spending limits and an aggressive journalistic culture, that attacks the major parties, calls out false claims and will ceaselessly mock soft-focus positive ads (albeit with a lot of party political bias) and you have an atmosphere that's much more conducive to third parties than America is.

But that's not the only thing. The other thing is that we do have a lot of districts that in America would go 75-25 one way or the other. Actually, Britain would go 65-20 to the Democrats, with the other 15% to a Green or a Socialist or something, but you know what I mean. The thing is, these days they don't divide like that. Labour might get 50%, but 25% of the constituency might be on the left but not like Labour. So they can go Lib Dem. Vice versa in Tory areas.

This was especially important in the 1990s, when the Tories were ridiculously unpopular. In 1997, people voted for whichever party could beat the Tories. Due to the Lib Dems having come second in a lot of places, this benefited them. They went from around 10 seats to around 50. In 2005, we saw a smaller but similar thing on the left, where the Lib Dems made Iraq-related gains off Labour.

With all this said, it is slightly weird that we have this dynamic, as the local campaign tends to happen under the radar of the national press and the local press is far too useless to cover it properly. Just one of those things, I guess. Maybe the key is the lack of one unified national election like the presidential ones?


[ Parent ]
Alternative Vote
Englishlefty,

Just saw this b/c of the link from the front page.  I'm curious to hear your (Labour-inflected) perspective on the prospect of a constitutional reform referendum in the UK.  From what I read, the major proposal to which the Lib Dems apparently got the Tories to agree was a referendum on the Alternative Vote system (which, from what I can tell, is basically what we poli sci types in the U.S. usually call Instant Runoff Voting).  Do you think this will happen?  Will voters approve it?  And if they do, how will it affect party dynamics?

It seems to me that if this happens (and I have no idea how likely that is), it could definitely work to the detriment of the Tories, and to the benefit of both Labour and the Lib Dems.  I'm guessing that a lot of voters' preferences are either "1-Labour,2-Lib Dem,3-Tory" or "1-Lib Dem,2-Labour,3-Tory," because the Lib Dems and Labour seem closer on policy than either of these parties are to the Tories.  If that's true, then the Alternative Vote should help Labour and the Lib Dems (plus it'll really be nice for both of you to stop having to worry about the greens -- voters can put greens first, and you or the Lib Dems second, in almost any constituency outside of Brighton Pavilion, and that'll be fine from your point of view.)  But this may be a naive American perspective.

Anyway, curious what your views are on this point.


[ Parent ]
I think that is indeed the case
But they are also talking about reducing the size of Parliament and making the constituencies of equal size which would help the Tories even out the Labour bias in the current lay of the land.

[ Parent ]
And is why the suburbs have moved in our direction in the past couple of cycles
They've had enough of the GOP becoming the party of the Deep South; it's not their ideology, they aren't extreme, they are pro-choice and dont demonize gay people.  This extreme turn to conservatism, it's not going to be a very lasting strategy.

[ Parent ]
"Nearly all the Anglophone countries follow FPTP"
...Except for Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the devolved legislatures of Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, etc. So, not really.  

[ Parent ]
Fair enough
except, aren't you are muddying the waters a bit with Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (London Assembly, etc.) as they're not "national" legislatures?  Other than New Zealand, though, nobody in the Anglophone world uses PR....

[ Parent ]
Scottish local elections do
In fact, Scotland could have four different ballots on 7th May 2015, under three different electoral systems.

For the record, that's:

FPTP (Scottish parliament constituencies)
STV (Scottish parliament regional lists and local council wards) and
AV (British general election constituencies)

Northern Ireland also uses STV for everything except Westminster elections.

I'd argue Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish legislature all count as national. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are nations and each of these bodies has significant powers, which will likely soon also include tax-raising responsibilities. They just aren't sovereign legislatures of independent states.


[ Parent ]
imprecise terminology on my part, but
you're basically conceding my point.  For elections to the national parliament (the British Parliament at Westminster, the US House of Representatives, the Canadian House of Commons, etc.), many Anglophone countries still use FPTP.  In the US, this, together with our Electoral College - based on the same model - pretty much smothers at birth any chance of a third-party politics.  Even third-party politicians who manage to get electoral votes (the last being George Wallace getting most of the South in 1968) soon have their votes absorbed by one or other of the two main parties (e.g., Nixon's Southern Strategy of 1972).  Very depressing for those of us who think the two-party duopoly freezes out a lot of policy options (especially those of even the most faintly social democratic kind!).

[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox