United Kingdom Archive

Europe 2009 – Day 1 results

By
Ben Raue
 – June 5, 2009

Thursday June 4 saw voting in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. I haven’t seen any results from the UK for either local council elections in England or the European Parliament (which I believe will be counted on Sunday), however, we have got results for the Netherlands.

Based on exit polls, the result seems to be:

  • Christian Democratic Appeal (EPP) – 19.6%, 5 seats (-2)
  • Party of Freedom (Far-right) – 15.3%, 4 seats (+4)
  • Labour (PES) – 13.9%, 4 seats (-3)
  • People”s Party for Freedom and Democracy (ELDR) – 11.0%, 3 seats (-1)
  • Democrats (ELDR) – 10.2%, 3 seats (+2)
  • GroenLinks (GRN) – 8.8%, 2 seats (-)
  • Socialists (EUL) – 7.9%, 2 seats (-)
  • Christian Union (I/DEM) – 7.4%, 2 seats (-)

Meanwhile in the UK, the British Labour government doesn’t seem to be waiting for the expected disastrous election results for the party to start imploding with up-and-coming Cabinet minister James Purnell resigning from the cabinet and calling on Gordon Brown to quit:

We therefore owe it to our country to give it a real choice. We need to show that we are prepared to fight to be a credible government and have the courage to offer an alternative future.

I am therefore calling on you to stand aside to give our party a fighting chance of winning. As such I am resigning from government.

The party was here long before us, and we want it to be here long after we have gone. We must do the right thing by it.

I am not seeking the leadership, nor acting with anyone else. My actions are my own considered view, nothing more.

If the consensus is that you should continue, then I will support the government loyally from the backbenches. But I do believe that this question now needs to be put.

12:19pm – Update from both Netherlands and the UK. Justin-Paul has pointed out that the Dutch results might not go as the exit polls predict:

Okay, stop press. I’m taking a closer look at the Dutch results; it looks like the Greens have a chance of winning a third seat at the expense of Labour. Some of these results are unprecedented: both the Democrats and Greens outpolled Labour in Amsterdam, which is one of its key strongholds. The Democrats registered a massive 14% swing to go to 21%; the Greens got a more modest one of 2% to poll 20%. Labour just under 15%.

The Party for Freedom has polled some particularly disturbing results, coming first in a few other key Labour strongholds like Rotterdam.

In the UK, the first council to report is Bristol, where the result is:

Lib Dems = 36 (+4)
Conservatives = 17 (+4)
Labour = 16 (-8)
Greens = 1 (-)

For purpose of comparison, Bristol council covers four Westminster electorates, three held by Labour and one by the Liberal Democrats.

Tags: , ,

Cameron pushes his own reforms

By
Ben Raue
 – May 27, 2009

Following on from potential Labour leader Alan Johnson’s call for the implementation of proportional representation in the House of Commons, Conservative leader David Cameron has proposed his own raft of reforms:

  • Limit the power of the prime minister by giving serious consideration to introducing fixed-term parliaments, ending the right of Downing Street to control the timing of general elections.
  • End the “pliant” role of parliament by giving MPs free votes during the consideration of bills at committee stage. MPs would also be handed the crucial power of deciding the timetable of bills.
  • Boost the power of backbench MPs – and limit the powers of the executive – by allowing MPs to choose the chairs and members of Commons select committees.
  • Open up the legislative process to outsiders by sending out text alerts on the progress of parliamentary bills and by posting proceedings on YouTube.
  • Curb the power of the executive by limiting the use of the royal prerogative which allows the prime minister, in the name of the monarch, to make major ­decisions. Gordon Brown is making sweeping changes in this area in the constitutional renewal bill, but Cameron says he would go further.
  • Publish the expenses claims of all public servants earning more than £150,000.
  • Strengthen local government by giving councils the power of “competence”. This would allow councils to reverse Whitehall decisions to close popular services, such as a local post office or a railway station, by giving them the power to raise money to keep them open.

I think some of these ideas are genuinely very good. Fixed term parliaments is a good step towards improving democracy, particularly if it entrenched the recent reality that most governments choose to go to the polls after four years. Other changes to the role of local government and the power of the executive likewise are a good step.

Some of them, however, seem gimmicky or impossible to maintain. The idea that sending out text messages and posting Parliament on Youtube is a major reform seems just silly. While I like the idea of MPs having a free vote when amending legislation and allowing backbench MPs to elect chairmen of their committees, they seem completely at odds with the current electoral system, apart from really being the responsibility of party leaders rather than the Prime Minister. A Conservative PM can’t force a Labour Opposition to allow its members a free vote.

Any future Conservative government will hold a majority in Parliament and will need to maintain it to stay in power. While it may be easy in his early days to grant his MPs this freedom, as soon as Labour begins to threaten him, and the day-to-day battle of winners and losers returns, pressure will come to bear on MPs with theoretical independence to not rock the boat and be a team player. Such a system would not be very different from the current reality. Likewise, a Conservative government faced with the embarassment of a party opponent winning the chair of a major committee could easily put pressure on its MPs.

You can’t create an independent legislature in a political system where a government is part of the legislature and the electoral system gives the party of government a majority. If you want to give MPs independence from the executive, you have two options:

  • Separate the executive from the legislature, as the US does. This would remove the close connection between the votes of MPs and the existence of their government. It would also reduce the ability of the executive to control MPs through the giving away of government offices and reduce their incentive to devote energy to maintaining rigid party discipline.
  • Change the electoral system so that most elections do not result in a government majority. Even if a significant minority of MPs are members of the government party and even ministers, a hung parliament is independent of government. Even a loose coalition or a minority government with agreements with minor parties produce vastly more accountability than a majority government.

There is actually a compromise option. I would argue that we have effectively created a hybrid model in Australia, with a separation of powers between the executive and the legislature, if you consider the legislature to be the Senate. Effectively the House of Representatives’ only real role in government now is as an electoral college and a pool of potential ministers.

In contrast, the Senate functions as an independent body in two ways. Firstly, it is proportional, and thus is usually independent of the government. Even though a large minority are loyal to the government, the body as a whole is independent. Of course, like any independent legislature, a dominant government can occasionally take control of the legislature (as, you could argue, the Nationals have effectively now done in New Zealand). In addition to that, even though ministers sit in the Senate, the government is not responsible to the Senate, thus Senators are elected without consideration of whether they will make or break the government, although, like any legislature, in extreme cases they can undermine the government beyond simply blocking legislation (think 1975, or Bill Clinton’s budget crisis in 1995).

Of course, it doesn’t deal with the issue that governments still hold power with minority support, and it doesn’t deal with the major issue that you have a chamber with so much of the power and resources reduced to an echo chamber and electoral college. But it could be a first step in the UK, by replacing the House of Lords with an elected Senate, along the same lines as the Australian Senate, or possibly the way that the UK elects it’s Members of the European Parliament.

Tags: , ,

Jenkins reheated

By
Ben Raue
 – May 24, 2009

With the resurgence of interest in proportional representation in the UK, and calls for an electoral reform referendum at the 2010 general election, I tracked down and read the report of the Jenkins Commission, which proposed a PR system for the UK House of Commons in 1998.

The 1997 Labour manifesto promised a referendum on proportional representation, and upon election the Blair government appointed an independent commission headed by Lord Jenkins, former President of the European Commission, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and founding figure in the Liberal Democrats.

It’s a fascinating proposal. It’s essentially a modification of the German MMP system, called Alternative Vote Plus. Essentially, 80-85% of MPs would still be elected by constituencies, although they would be elected using Australian-style preference voting. In addition, “top-up” seats would be elected in a large number of regions, with the Jenkins Commission proposing 80 regions for the entire UK, including 65 in England.

I’ve come around to the idea of an MMP system as a way of reducing the impact of PR on our culture of electorates, although I still would prefer a Hare-Clark/STV system. The main problem I see with the Jenkins model is that it really isn’t a proper proportional system. The combination of the low proportion of the MPs elected by top-up lists and the division of these lists into 80 regions means most regions only elect 1, 2 or 3 top-up MPs. This will mean that, in many places, one party will win more constituency seats than their total allocation, and any reallocation will largely be limited to the major parties. Any party smaller than the Liberal Democrats would be lucky to win any seats.

This is particularly bizarre when you consider that where MMP is already used in the UK, in Scotland, Wales and London, almost 50% of the representatives are elected from top-up lists. I tend to think that, if you increased the number of top-up MPs to about 30% of the Parliament, and reduced the number of regions used to elect these MPs to the same constituencies used to elect the European Parliament.

It is fascinating that the UK now has a flourishing electoral reform movement, led by the umbrella group Make My Vote Count, which includes the fantastic Electoral Reform Society. We have nothing like that in Australia. While we have a Proportional Representation Society, it is a tiny group that really is more of a society of interested people than a campaign group. In particular, they have adopted a model for the NSW Parliament which is bizarre and completely impossible to implement.

I had an interesting debate across Twitter with Possum on Friday regarding the possibility for PR in Australia. Some people tend to assume that, just because PR is not in the interests of the major parties, it cannot be implemented. This ignores the fact that major parties in New Zealand, the UK and various Canadian provinces have moved to various degrees towards implementing PR. The ALP has also shown a clear preference for PR in upper houses in Australia, which demonstrates some appreciation of the benefits of the system.

However, all of those countries saw PR became an issue on the agenda once a political campaign group began actively campaigning, lobbying, signing up members and getting media attention. We are a long way away from that here in Australia. Such a campaign group was always in place to be ready for a future political crisis. We can see this in the UK now, where decades of campaigning by the Electoral Reform Society has put them in a position to take advantage of the current political crisis.

This makes me think there is room to move on this issue in New South Wales, as a starting point for future campaigning. If an Electoral Reform campaign could be started over the next year to be pushed during the 2011 election, I believe it could gain traction with voters tired of the current government. Considering that Barry O’Farrell has already opened the door to constitutional change by questioning the current fixed-four-year-term arrangement, I believe there is an opening to pressure the Opposition on some sort of constitutional debate, such as a constitutional convention, royal commission or citizens’ assembly.

Tags: ,

UK scandal brings flowering of reform ideas

By
Ben Raue
 – May 22, 2009

Following the recent scandal in the UK, some senior figures in the Labour government have used the opportunity to push ahead with major democratic reforms:

An intense cabinet-level debate is under way on the format of this initiative, its timescale and the range of issues that would be discussed. The enthusiasts for wider reform include Harriet Harman, leader of the Commons, James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, and David Miliband, the foreign secretary.

The discussions were launched inside the cabinet by the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, when he raised the idea of a British constitutional convention on the model of the Scottish constitutional convention.

What the modernisers inside the ­cabinet want on the agenda is:

• A referendum on electoral reform for the House of Commons.

• An elected upper house.

• Spending caps on donations to political parties.

• A widening of the base from which candidates are drawn.

It is a fascinating idea that the UK could finally move on such major democratic deficits as the first-past-the-post electoral system in the House of Commons and the continued existence of the appointed House of Lords.

Indeed, the Guardian today has launched a Comment is Free series packed full of opinion pieces from their journalists proposing dramatic changes to British democracy, from reducing the number of MPs to an elected upper house, proportional representation in the House of Commons, directly-elected mayors and the abolition of the monarchy. You can register as a user and join in the debate.

It would be fascinating to have such a debate in Australia. Part of me thinks that, even if we aren’t in a position to do it on a national level, it’s plausible we could see a constitutional convention take place in New South Wales. Indeed, after I tweeted this afternoon about the debate within the British government over reforms, I got this response from the man who will likely be the next Premier of New South Wales:

ofarrelltweet

Tags: , ,

BNP vs Greens in North West England

By
Ben Raue
 – May 21, 2009

As a follow-up to yesterday’s profile of the UK race for the European Parliament, I thought I would feature this campaign website for the Green Party’s candidate for North-West England, Peter Cranie.

The Greens, in addition to their seats in London and South East England, are focusing on North-West where BNP leader Nick Griffin stands a real chance of winning a seat.

The Greens have managed to get left-wing party RESPECT to withdraw in North West to avoid splitting the vote, and to explain the voting system and why this means a vote for the Greens is the best method of defeating Nick Griffin, they have produced this YouTube video.

MEPs in Great Britain, and in many other EU countries, are elected using the D’Hondt method. As explained in the video, in each round the party with the most votes is elected, and every party’s votes are divided by the number of seats they have previously won, + 1. It is similar to the counting system used to fill seats in the New Zealand Parliament (although in that system votes are divided by twice the number of seats won, plus one, so the divisors are 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc, rather than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc).

In 2004, the second Liberal Democrat was elected on a vote that was about 8%, while Griffin polled 6.4% and the Greens polled 5.6%. Considering recent polling following the expenses scandal, the scenario the Greens put in the video seems plausible.

Below the fold I’ve posted a request for donations I received, if anyone feels like giving money.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , ,

Europe 2009 – United Kingdom

By
Ben Raue
 – May 19, 2009

The United Kingdom will vote for its Members of the European Parliament on Thursday 4th June, the  same day as elections for England’s 27 County Councils and a number of other local government bodies.

While the UK elected 78 MEPs in 2004, this will fall to 72 seats in 2009. The UK’s MEPs are elected using a D’Hondt party-list proportional representation electoral system, with the exception of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland elects its three MEPs using the Single Transferable Vote. England’s MEPs are divided into the nine governmental regions while Wales and Scotland’s MEPs are elected as a single group.

The 2004 election saw large swings against both major parties, with the votes swinging mainly to the United Kingdom Conservative Party, and to a lesser extent the Liberal Democrats. The result for England, Scotland and Wales was:

  • Conservative (European Democrats) – 27
  • Labour (Party of European Socialists) – 19
  • UKIP (Independence/Democracy) – 12
  • Liberal Democrats (ALDE) – 12
  • Green Party (European Greens) – 2
  • Scottish National Party (European Free Alliance) – 2
  • Plaid Cymru (European Free Alliance) – 1

The election in Northern Ireland saw each major unionist party retain one seat, while Sinn Fein took the one republican seat away from the SDLP.

Since the 2004 election UKIP has suffered difficulties working as a functioning team with such a large group of MEPs, and have lost three of their 12 MEPs over the last term. Polls recently have shown a large increase in the vote by minor parties in the European election in the aftermath of the expenses scandal, which has damaged the standing of all major parties. Polls indicate that UKIP has returned to the polling levels which netted the party 12 seats in 2004, and that Labour is in danger of falling below either UKIP or the Liberal Democrats. Polling numbers have also risen for the Greens and the British National Party, raising the spectre of the far-right party winning seats in the north of England.

Tags: ,

UK map update

By
Ben Raue
 – May 18, 2009

Amongst everything else, I’m still working on my Google Earth map of House of Commons constituencies. I recently finished work on the seats in the South West region and uploaded the latest version to my maps page. The latest version of the map covers 212 of the 650 seats that will elect MPs at the next general election.

Tags: ,

UK election animation

By
Ben Raue
 – February 17, 2009

ukmap

I’ve come across an interesting election animation, showing the electoral map of every UK election since the Reform Act of 1832, showing the geographical distribution of Conservative, Labour and Liberal/Liberal Democrat seats since that time as a cartogram.

You can clearly see the shift over time, with the appearance of Labour in the late 1800s and the decline of the Liberals from the time that the universal franchise was introduced in the early 1920s.

Tags: ,

UK Parliament boundaries

By
Ben Raue
 – February 9, 2009

So the UK will see a general election either this year or next year, and the election will see a new set of boundaries being used in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, while Scotland last had a redistribution before the 2005 election. I’ve started drawing the electoral boundaries in Google Earth. It’s a big task, so I thought I’d upload what I’ve done so far. I’ve completed two regions of England, being Greater London and the South East. Collectively these regions elect 157 MPs, just under a quarter of the House. You can access it here.

Tags: ,

2009 election preview: United Kingdom

By
Ben Raue
 – December 23, 2008

The next UK general election must be held by June 2010, so strictly it may not take place within 2009. All UK general elections since 1979 have taken place within the April-June period, so the only two likely election date possibilities are in the spring of 2009 or the spring of 2010. There is intense speculation in the UK at the moment of the prospects of an early election in 2009. While Brown remains well behind in the polls, there is an argument that his increased popularity in recent polls gives him his only shot of securing another term in office.

Gordon Brown has had a bumpy time as Prime Minister. He led early in his term, which led to speculation in late 2007. The first half of 2008 was dominated by disastrous polls and by-elections for Labour, losing two safe seats (one to the Conservatives and one to the SNP) and performing poorly in other races.

Because of the large number of seats held by parties other than Labour and Conservative, there is a significant possibility of a hung parliament at the next election. It is estimated that a swing of between 1.6% and 6.9% would result in a hung Parliament. The Liberal Democrats hold 62 seats, the SNP holds seven with prospects of large gains, and seats are also held by Plaid Cymru in Wales and all 18 seats in Northern Ireland are held by local parties. Collectively a party can win a substantial lead in seats without winning a majority.

Furthermore, electoral geography substantially favours Labour. It is estimated that the Conservatives would need to win by at least 6% in order to be the largest party in Parliament.

Opinion polls have favoured the Conservatives since October 2007, when polls turned against Brown. Conservative leads became solid in early 2008, with Labour failing to poll over 30% in any poll from May to September. The Glenrothes by-election in November happened as Labour gained ground in the middle of the global financial crisis.

The latest polls still put Labour well behind the Conservatives, but within range of winning a minority government at an early election.

Prospects for minor parties vary. The Liberal Democrats polled 22% in 2005, their best result since polling over 20% in the 1980s as the SDP-Liberal Alliance. However, nearly all opinion polls in the last two years have put the LibDems in the high teens, well below the heights of 2005. This does not necessarily mean that the Liberal Democrats will lose ground at the next election, but their rise appears to have been blunted by the resurgence of a credible Opposition.

The Scottish National Party currently hold seven seats in Westminster, six won in 2005 and a seventh won at the Glasgow East by-election. The SNP won office with a massive swing at the Scottish election in 2007. Despite falling short at the Glenrothes by-election, it appears that the SNP are on track to win a substantial number of Scottish seats, making them a player in their own right in Westminster, akin to the Bloc Quebecois rising in Canadian federal politics.

Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party, have made nowhere near as much gains as the SNP, but could be expected to pick up extra seats at the expense of Labour in the next election.

Considering the positions of the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Nationalists, an interesting scenario that is entirely plausible is that we could see a similar situation in the UK as we currently are seeing in Canada, with a strong left-of-centre minor party and left-of-centre separatist party controlling the balance of power. It will be fascinating to see the consequences in the UK if the LibDems and the SNP are finally given a taste of power.

Tags: ,
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »