When the exit poll came through on Thursday night, telling us that the Liberal Democrats would only win ten seats, no-one could quite believe it. Paddy Ashdown was so surprised by the prediction that he promised he would eat his hat were it true.
After all, the pollsters has been speculating for months that the Lib Dems would end up with between 25 and 30 seats. Surely the Lib Dem support wouldn't totally collapse in so many of their seats.
In the end, the exit poll wasn't quite right. The Lib Dems ended up with eight seats, their worst result since the Liberal Party earned six seats in 1970. There was no favour for incumbents, not even for long standing MPs, or those serving in the Cabinet.
Vince Cable is gone. Danny Alexander is gone. Ed Davey, Simon Hughes, David Laws and 44 others are all out the door, punished by the electorate for their party's role in government. Those that are left are spread around the country. There's one in six of the nine regions of England, along with one in Wales and one in Scotland, the latter being the old Liberal territory of Orkney and Shetland. The region generally regarded as the closest thing the Liberals had to a region of their own, the South West, now is entirely blue with a little bit of red.
Nick Clegg, one of the few survivors, has quit the leadership. Tim Farron is tipped to be the next leader, purely because he's the only one that many are familiar with. With a Conservative majority government, and a dominant SNP, the Lib Dems have little relevance inside the Commons, and with 1.4 million less votes than UKIP, not much relevance outside it.
How did it all come to this?
A loss of seats was inevitable. The Lib Dems have long been a party that has to work harder to get seats that the big two, so when their polling fell it was guaranteed that their seat loss would be fairly large. But the pollsters still thought there would be an incumbency effect, and that the high profile Lib Dems would just hold on. This was based on specific Ashcroft polling, which indicated that the overall perception of Lib Dems was worse across the country that it was in Lib Dem held seats that looked like becoming marginal.
As fivethirtyeight has explained, incumbency did not matter. Predictions that used the broad Lib Dem numbers proved much closer to reality, but no-one made them. What this does suggest is that the electorate's dismay with the Lib Dems was greater than any personal support they felt for their local member.
Why?
The other thing to keep in mind is that the Lib Dem's support over the years has been built on a small base and a significant protest vote. People that vote for the Lib Dems in one election have historically been likely to move to one of the other major parties, with those voters being replaced in the Lib Dem support base by other disaffected voters. The Lib Dems did not attract any of this support this time around, as they were now a party of government with the Conservatives, annoying traditional voters of both major parties for different reasons. Beyond their core of 8%, voters had no reason to pick them as the protest vote.
Traditional Labour voters went back to a Labour party that appealed to them, attempting to ditch the image of New Labour. Traditional Conservative voters had no reason to vote for the minor member of a coalition that had prevented the Tories from making certain policy decisions, and shifting voters felt similarly. Disaffected voters now had one other significant option: UKIP. UKIP made sure everyone knew that they weren't simply attracting old Tories - they were attracting old Labour too. Finally, the SNP and the Greens presented a reputable alternative to Labour for those annoyed at the Lib Dems for enabling a Conservative government. Other than classic and social liberals, what reason was there to vote Lib Dem?
Their campaign tried to emphasise their ability to be a coalition partner with either of the major parties, but in the end voters preferred having a majority government (though not by much). The reputation of the Lib Dems suffered so much from the controversial government decision on tuition fees, and the appearance of going along with the Tories budget decisions, that any hope of appealing to voters beyond their core base completely vanished years ago.
It's now a long road back to appealing to the electorate. First, they have to figure out who they are. One potential saving grace for them is that we may be near the end of first past the post, which may give them a way back in. But even then, that is unlikely to expand their base, which they need to do if they ever want to revive the cause of liberalism as being truly significant in modern Britain.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Saturday, 9 May 2015
Thursday, 7 May 2015
D-Day for the UK
Elections can be mixed events. Election junkies, for lack of a better term, spend weeks in fascination as the now-daily polls come in, gauging the mood of the electorate. Sometimes, this can lead up to an exciting election with close polls. Other times, it leads to a straightforward affair with one party clearly dominating. This has especially been the case in two-party democracies - basically the entire English speaking world.
The last UK election threw a spanner in the works by forcing a coalition to be made, something their continental European cousins are very much used to. Now the next UK general election is upon us, and things are looking even less clear, and therefore even more interesting. Labour and the Conservatives are basically tied in the national polls, and three minor parties are polling between 15 and 5%. The Scottish Nationalists are on track to win all but a few Scottish seats. The only certainty seems to be that everything is very uncertain.
This is not due to a particularly inspiring campaign from all sides. Quite the opposite, actually, with every party - especially the older ones - seeking to stage manage the weeks running up to the vote as much as possible. The entire western world seems increasingly disconnected with politics, and this theme was writ large throughout the campaign, being brought up by both the media (who are partly at fault for the disconnection in the first place) and the public.
The work of Lord Ashcroft in getting individual electorate polling going throughout the campaign, at his own expense and to sate his own curiosity, has added a useful dimension to the campaign. Unlike in a multi-member proportional parliament, single member districts each come with their own unique situation, and often those situation weren't spelt out until the election had already happened. Being able to track the closeness of individual key seats has made predictions more accurate...we think.
Polling is a notoriously complex dilemma, if for no other reason than we don't know what impact they have on people's decisions. Nevertheless, in theory they have been of great value. We shall have to wait and see how true that turns out to be.
Just as interesting as the result is what happens afterwards. Should it turn out to be the multi-party parliament it promises to be, beholden to the SNP, figuring out who governs may take far longer than the British are used to. The most likely scenario, though, given Labour's strategy, is that a Labour/Lib Dem coalition governs with the SNP given them confidence. This allows them to have a plurality over the larger Tories, thus giving them 'legitimacy', which has been another big question over the past month. What role UKIP can play remains to be seen. Labour and the Lib Dems are uneasy with the idea of a referendum on leaving the EU, and the Conservatives can wipe their hands of it should they not take office.
So, with that, here's my mostly unprofessional and full of guessing prediction:
Conservatives: 276
Labour: 264
Liberal Democrats: 29
UKIP: 4
SNP: 54
Green: 1
Other: 22
Whatever happens, what will be confirmed is that the people have had enough of two-party politics. It is up to each party to earn the respect and support of the people by listening to them. UKIP and the SNP have both done this, albeit in different ways. The others will need to do similar in the future.
The last UK election threw a spanner in the works by forcing a coalition to be made, something their continental European cousins are very much used to. Now the next UK general election is upon us, and things are looking even less clear, and therefore even more interesting. Labour and the Conservatives are basically tied in the national polls, and three minor parties are polling between 15 and 5%. The Scottish Nationalists are on track to win all but a few Scottish seats. The only certainty seems to be that everything is very uncertain.
This is not due to a particularly inspiring campaign from all sides. Quite the opposite, actually, with every party - especially the older ones - seeking to stage manage the weeks running up to the vote as much as possible. The entire western world seems increasingly disconnected with politics, and this theme was writ large throughout the campaign, being brought up by both the media (who are partly at fault for the disconnection in the first place) and the public.
The work of Lord Ashcroft in getting individual electorate polling going throughout the campaign, at his own expense and to sate his own curiosity, has added a useful dimension to the campaign. Unlike in a multi-member proportional parliament, single member districts each come with their own unique situation, and often those situation weren't spelt out until the election had already happened. Being able to track the closeness of individual key seats has made predictions more accurate...we think.
Polling is a notoriously complex dilemma, if for no other reason than we don't know what impact they have on people's decisions. Nevertheless, in theory they have been of great value. We shall have to wait and see how true that turns out to be.
Just as interesting as the result is what happens afterwards. Should it turn out to be the multi-party parliament it promises to be, beholden to the SNP, figuring out who governs may take far longer than the British are used to. The most likely scenario, though, given Labour's strategy, is that a Labour/Lib Dem coalition governs with the SNP given them confidence. This allows them to have a plurality over the larger Tories, thus giving them 'legitimacy', which has been another big question over the past month. What role UKIP can play remains to be seen. Labour and the Lib Dems are uneasy with the idea of a referendum on leaving the EU, and the Conservatives can wipe their hands of it should they not take office.
So, with that, here's my mostly unprofessional and full of guessing prediction:
Conservatives: 276
Labour: 264
Liberal Democrats: 29
UKIP: 4
SNP: 54
Green: 1
Other: 22
Whatever happens, what will be confirmed is that the people have had enough of two-party politics. It is up to each party to earn the respect and support of the people by listening to them. UKIP and the SNP have both done this, albeit in different ways. The others will need to do similar in the future.
Wednesday, 18 March 2015
When Palmer United became a party divided
After the 2013 federal election, it appeared there was a new force in Australian politics. Clive Palmer, mining magnate and Bjelke-Petersen supporter, had run a huge campaign, storming across the nation from Queensland, like a tropical cyclone. It covered television, radio, billboards, newspapers, letterbox pamphlets and even a DVD, and it worked a treat. The Palmer United Party gained one House of Representatives member (Palmer himself in Fairfax), but more importantly appeared to hold the balance of power in the Senate, with three Senators from three states, as well as an 'informal alliance' with the newly elected Ricky Muir.
As of this week, those five MPs have dwindled to two - Palmer and WA's Dio Wang are all that are left, with Muir, Jacqui Lambie and now Glenn 'Brick With Eyes' Lazarus going their own way. The cyclone had petered out to a mild drizzle.
So what happened?
In order to understand the sudden collapse of the PUP, you must see the party for what it is. Some have claimed that the party was only ever a ruse or a front for Palmer himself, designed to allow him greater lobbying ability within the parliament, and ultimately the government. Certainly, Palmer has attempted to use the party for this at times, but it seems an overly open way of lobbying for even someone like Clive. Palmer is a clever individual - dumb like a fox, you might say - and he has decades of experience in politics behind the scenes. If he just wanted to lobby, he would just lobby.
No, it seems that Palmer was genuinely interested in some kind of party for the people. Of course, the party would have to serve his interests, but Palmer would presumably also believe that his interests are the interests of the majority of Australians. Essentially, he wanted to create a populist party that could claim to be for the people, by the people.
You can see this in the candidates that were selected. The range of backgrounds is remarkably wide, from academics to tradesmen and everything in between. But there is also the sense that in most cases they just picked whoever was willing to have a go, apart from a few hand-picked candidates.
This is an approach fraught with danger, but it didn't seem to affect their overall appeal too much. In fact, stories like their candidate in Corangamite's wild election launch party were probably just as appealing to some members of the electorate as they were unappealing to others. So, during the course of the 2013 campaign, all seemed well. The potential for disaster that exists with having independently minded candidates brought together only by dissatisfaction with current politics was hidden by the sheer breadth of the campaign. Palmer offered a simple, effective message to the public - 'reunite the nation' - and the public responded.
Even though many wondered how long Lambie would last within the party upon first hearing her opinions, things seemed to get even better for the PUP in the WA Senate election, when they received 12.34% of the vote, a remarkable amount for a minor party in Australia.
Since then, it has been downhill. Two Queensland state MPs quit the party, with one citing a culture of 'jobs for the boys'. The three Northern Territory rebel MPs who joined the party in 2014 quit soon after, due to a total lack of structure and support.
And, most crucially, two Senators announced they would be independent. Lambie and Lazarus both left after personal spats with Palmer. Muir, meanwhile, has quietly done his own thing.
In the end, it seems the problem is Clive, and the fact that everything in the party centres around him. Should a member find fault with him, they find fault with the party, and leave. This is a difficult problem to have, as Palmer is also the only reason the party exists in the first place. As is often the case when one person drives the entire party, the fortunes of the party live and die on that person's performance, which is in no way a viable long-term option.
The story of the Dutch Pim Fortuyn List is a clear example of this. Led by a populist, nationalist leader in Pim Fortuyn, the party rocketed into Government in its first election. It did this without Fortuyn, who had been assassinated during the election campaign. Without Fortuyn, and unable to use the wave of public support to govern in the same way it did to get voted in, the party fell apart. In only one year the party lost two-thirds of its vote. Three years later it barely registered at all.
So, what must the PUP do to avoid this fate? Firstly, it must change its name to what it was originally to be called - the United Australia Party. This, if only rhetorically, takes the focus off Palmer. Second, it needs to develop clear policy. Populism can only take a party so far, and often only on the back of a popular leader. As we have seen, a party based on a popular leader will not last, so the party must look to add depth of support, even if it comes at the expense of breadth of support.
Only then may the PUP be seen as a potential lasting force in Australian politics. If it does not, or cannot, do these things, it will be only a footnote in our political history.
As of this week, those five MPs have dwindled to two - Palmer and WA's Dio Wang are all that are left, with Muir, Jacqui Lambie and now Glenn 'Brick With Eyes' Lazarus going their own way. The cyclone had petered out to a mild drizzle.
So what happened?
In order to understand the sudden collapse of the PUP, you must see the party for what it is. Some have claimed that the party was only ever a ruse or a front for Palmer himself, designed to allow him greater lobbying ability within the parliament, and ultimately the government. Certainly, Palmer has attempted to use the party for this at times, but it seems an overly open way of lobbying for even someone like Clive. Palmer is a clever individual - dumb like a fox, you might say - and he has decades of experience in politics behind the scenes. If he just wanted to lobby, he would just lobby.
No, it seems that Palmer was genuinely interested in some kind of party for the people. Of course, the party would have to serve his interests, but Palmer would presumably also believe that his interests are the interests of the majority of Australians. Essentially, he wanted to create a populist party that could claim to be for the people, by the people.
You can see this in the candidates that were selected. The range of backgrounds is remarkably wide, from academics to tradesmen and everything in between. But there is also the sense that in most cases they just picked whoever was willing to have a go, apart from a few hand-picked candidates.
This is an approach fraught with danger, but it didn't seem to affect their overall appeal too much. In fact, stories like their candidate in Corangamite's wild election launch party were probably just as appealing to some members of the electorate as they were unappealing to others. So, during the course of the 2013 campaign, all seemed well. The potential for disaster that exists with having independently minded candidates brought together only by dissatisfaction with current politics was hidden by the sheer breadth of the campaign. Palmer offered a simple, effective message to the public - 'reunite the nation' - and the public responded.
Even though many wondered how long Lambie would last within the party upon first hearing her opinions, things seemed to get even better for the PUP in the WA Senate election, when they received 12.34% of the vote, a remarkable amount for a minor party in Australia.
Since then, it has been downhill. Two Queensland state MPs quit the party, with one citing a culture of 'jobs for the boys'. The three Northern Territory rebel MPs who joined the party in 2014 quit soon after, due to a total lack of structure and support.
And, most crucially, two Senators announced they would be independent. Lambie and Lazarus both left after personal spats with Palmer. Muir, meanwhile, has quietly done his own thing.
In the end, it seems the problem is Clive, and the fact that everything in the party centres around him. Should a member find fault with him, they find fault with the party, and leave. This is a difficult problem to have, as Palmer is also the only reason the party exists in the first place. As is often the case when one person drives the entire party, the fortunes of the party live and die on that person's performance, which is in no way a viable long-term option.
The story of the Dutch Pim Fortuyn List is a clear example of this. Led by a populist, nationalist leader in Pim Fortuyn, the party rocketed into Government in its first election. It did this without Fortuyn, who had been assassinated during the election campaign. Without Fortuyn, and unable to use the wave of public support to govern in the same way it did to get voted in, the party fell apart. In only one year the party lost two-thirds of its vote. Three years later it barely registered at all.
So, what must the PUP do to avoid this fate? Firstly, it must change its name to what it was originally to be called - the United Australia Party. This, if only rhetorically, takes the focus off Palmer. Second, it needs to develop clear policy. Populism can only take a party so far, and often only on the back of a popular leader. As we have seen, a party based on a popular leader will not last, so the party must look to add depth of support, even if it comes at the expense of breadth of support.
Only then may the PUP be seen as a potential lasting force in Australian politics. If it does not, or cannot, do these things, it will be only a footnote in our political history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)