BBC News: UK general election system broken, says think-tank

BBC News Online today outlines the findings of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) regarding the General Election last May:

The general election result was determined by just 1.6% of voters in marginal Commons seats, a report by a think-tank suggests. The Institute for Public Policy Research said the UK had a "broken" electoral system, unable to cope with the rise of minor parties. This made hung parliaments, like that returned last May, far likelier. Reform was needed to create better representation and more stable governments, the think-tank said.

The think-tank found that 31% of voters - 9 million people - lived in marginal seats which formed the main battlefields under the first-past-the-post system. And the number whose votes made up the margin of victory in seats which actually changed was just over 460,000, or 1.6%, of the electorate, the IPPR says.

Meanwhile, 34.9% of votes in the 2010 general election were cast for parties other than the "big two" - compared with 3.2% in 1951. This made single-party government less likely, with the major parties now requiring 85 more seats than their major rivals to secure power and 100 more to enjoy the kind of parliamentary majority needed to rule effectively, the report suggests.

Think-tank director Nick Pearce said: "Britain now has a broken voting system that needs to be fixed. Unless first-past-the-post is reformed, the UK will be left with a voting system that neither delivers fair representation nor single-party government. The last election result was not an aberration but a reflection of long-term changes in voting patterns across the UK which significantly increase the likelihood of more hung parliaments in the future. Britain has evolved into a multi-party system, but it still has an electoral system designed for only two parties."

NB: If you're interested (and maybe you should be!), the IPPR website has a longer summary in the original press release (link) and a link to the full report (PDF), evocatively entitled Worst of Both Worlds—Why First Past the Past No Longer Works. Take a look!

Economist: There is an alternative (AV)

Yesterday in The Economist (full article below):

The referendum on electoral reform could be the decisive political event of 2011, and perhaps of this parliament

Parliamentary arithmetic, personal compatibility and shared ideas all played their part in bringing the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats together in a coalition government last May. But the compromise without which the deal might not have happened was the Tories’ offer to hold a referendum on the Lib Dems’ cherished goal of electoral reform. Scheduled for May 5th, the plebiscite will ask whether Westminster’s first-past-the-post voting system (FPTP) should be replaced by the alternative-vote model (AV). It could be the most fraught single issue to face the coalition in 2011, and perhaps in the whole five-year parliament.

The proposed reform itself is fairly modest. Under FPTP, voters can only back one constituency candidate at a general election. Under AV, they would rank the contenders according to preference. If no candidate won 50% of first preferences, second and subsequent preferences would be tallied until somebody did. This is not the proportional representation of Lib Dem dreams. Indeed, some experts say AV would sometimes be less proportional than FPTP, if the make-up of the resulting parliament is measured against the first-preference votes cast for each party. Still, as the natural second-choice party for many, at least until the collapse in their support during the young life of the coalition, the Lib Dems would stand to benefit.

The internal politics of the referendum are more complex than the change itself. Were the public to endorse AV, Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem deputy prime minister, would have something important to show for his participation in a government with which many of his tribe feel increasingly uneasy. But that result could inflame the Tory right, which resents the influence of the junior branch of the coalition, and fears that AV would make it impossible for their party to govern alone again. (According to YouGov, a polling firm, at the last general election Lib Dem voters were more likely to have given their second preferences to the Labour Party than to the Tories.)

If, however, voters reject AV, the already beleaguered Lib Dem leader could face a crisis. The cause of electoral reform would be set back for years. And his party is expected to take heavy losses in local elections on the same day. Those Lib Dems who feel marginalised in the coalition, and who regard Mr Clegg as a drag on their poll ratings, might even try to remove him. A change in Lib Dem leadership would not necessarily mean the fall of the government, but it is hard to imagine anyone else working quite so well with David Cameron, the Tory prime minister.

The result of the vote is hard to predict. Opinion polls suggest it is a close race. Lib Dem supporters are overwhelmingly in favour of AV, Labour ones prefer it slightly, and Tory backers are broadly against it. This reflects the positions of the three parties’ leaderships. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader and a longstanding believer in electoral reform, is campaigning for AV, along with much of his shadow cabinet. But he is tolerating dissent on this issue, and many Labour MPs (including former cabinet members) are taking the other side.

For his part, Mr Cameron opposes AV, but might not campaign against it as vigorously as many of his Tory colleagues will. Eager to prop up his troubled deputy, he will not want to be seen as instrumental in defeating AV, should it be rejected.

The circumstances of the referendum are controversial in themselves. Labour says the government should not have included the authorisation for the plebiscite in the same bill as measures to reshape parliamentary constituencies: seats are to be made more similar in population size, which will erode some of the advantage Labour derives from having lots of small seats where relatively few votes are needed to win. Timing is another gripe. Holding the referendum on the same day as elections for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and some English local authorities may result in differential turnouts across the country and a skewed result. Mr Clegg, who oversees constitutional reform, says it will save money.

Whichever the outcome, there will be trouble for the coalition—either from angry Tories or fed-up Lib Dems. On balance, a rejection of AV would be more destabilising. The Lib Dems have already been traumatised by the government’s decision to raise the cap on university-tuition fees. They expect their poll ratings to fall into single figures. They could do badly, and perhaps even finish third, in the by-election in Oldham and Saddleworth, in north-west England, on January 13th. But these could seem like the good old days for Mr Clegg if he fails to secure even a limited kind of voting reform in May.

The biggest challenges facing the pro-AV camp are on its own side. Many of its leading lights actually prefer other voting systems: it will be hard to disguise that lack of enthusiasm during the referendum campaign. The other liability is Mr Clegg himself. The referendum will allow voters to punish him for his perceived betrayals by voting against the change.

The man whose efforts in the general election and its aftermath forced electoral reform onto the agenda will be implored to keep his distance from the cause. Perhaps nothing captures better the bizarre political turbulence of the last year, and the drama of the year to come.

Guardian: Clegg to front plan for mainly elected House of Lords

Story from today's Guardian newspaper:

Nick Clegg will next year outline plans for the most far-reaching changes to the House of Lords since landmark reforms 100 years ago by a Liberal government ended the upper house's ability to block Britain's annual budget.

In a move to shore up the position of the beleaguered Liberal Democrats, the cabinet will endorse the deputy prime minister's plans for the upper chamber to be overwhelmingly composed of elected members. It is expected that the cabinet will agree that 80% of the new house should be elected.

David Cameron, who has grown increasingly alarmed in the past month at the personal attacks on Clegg, hopes such historic changes will strengthen the Lib Dems.

So far, so good... But there could be some wreckers:

Clegg may find he has a battle within the cabinet once he has outlined his plans. Some senior Tories believe Cameron will quietly live up to his pre-election commitment to ensure that reform of the House of Lords moves slowly when a joint committee of both houses of parliament is established after the publication of Clegg's blueprint.

"I'm sure we will have a great fanfare of reform on the centenary of the 1911 Parliament Act," one senior figure said. "Thereafter it won't be so much a case of kicking it into the long grass – we'll be looking to park it in grass that is around the height of a giraffe."

Read the whole thing - the article gives a convenient summary of (lack of) progress on House of Lords Reform.... A good candidate for exam topics.

Elect, Select or Reject: the Future of the House of Lords

The UK Parliament Channel on Youtube has uploaded a new video summarising the school debates—held in the Palace of Westminster on 10th December 2010—about the Future of the House of Lords... Elect, Select or Reject!



Definitely worth watching as a means of getting a handle on the various options and arguments...

Guardian: 2010 - The Year in Politics

Guardian Unlimited has a useful round-up of the year's events in UK politics:

New policy organisation for Downing Street

The Guardian has the story, important for our understanding of the developing central importance of the PM's department...

Cameron reorganises structure of policy team along similar lines to Blair
Advisers on key areas to be appointed to focus on government's performance

Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/23/cameron-reorganise-policy-team

David Cameron is reorganising the Downing Street policy unit along similar lines to Tony Blair's operation, as coalition ministers and officials seek to sharpen the government's performance.

A series of advisers on key policy areas are being appointed, after the prime minister expressed frustration that the post-election structure meant No 10 was failing to keep abreast of thinking in individual government departments...

Cameron made his name as a special adviser at the Treasury and the Home Office in the early 1990s, He demanded a rethink after being irritated when he asked for a detailed briefing on law and order.

The changes will fuel speculation that No 10 wants to impose its writ on Whitehall departments - will Cameron follow Blair in adopting a more centralised ("presidential") control over government policy?

Parliament.uk : The General Election Xplained

The Education Service at www.Parliament.uk announced today that a new video resource has been uploaded for Key Stage 4-5 (Stage 5 = A-Level.... That's you!) Here's the trailer:



It's called The General Election Xplained (click on link) and runs for about 20 minutes:

Comedian Jay Foreman takes us on a journey from the earliest stages of the election campaign through to the formation of the government, in a fun and accessible manner. Along the way, he looks at the role of political parties, opportunities to make them aware of your point of view, and how your vote could have an impact on the outcome of the election.

He also looks inside the Houses of Parliament to find out the difference between Parliament and government, the role of committees in scrutinising legislation, and the responsibilities of the House of Commons, House of Lords and the monarch.

Watch the video to dip into all of these issues in just over twenty minutes and, above all, discover why a comedian like Jay Foreman finds the general election so exciting!

 Definitely worth watching, I'd say, whether you're currently studying Elections (Unit 1, Year 12), about to start looking at Parliament (Unit 2, Year 12), or whether you're revising for retakes in the next few weeks and are looking for a light-hearted revision resource. Take a look!

The different tribes of Liberal Democrats

BBC News Online has published a convenient analysis of the ideological strands that exist within the Liberal Democrats, compiled by political correspondent Iain Watson:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11934740

The squabble over the LibDem-Tory Coalition's plans for reforming the government approach to student tuition fees in England and Wales has served to bring these 'tribal divisions' to the fore (see accompanying graphic).

The article goes on to discuss the origins of these ideological strands (it should never be forgotten, of course, that the LibDems are an amalgam of two previously-existing parties) while suggesting additional tensions may lie ahead. Definitely worth reading as a reminder of the range of opinions that exist within all political parties.

Pressure Groups - Direct Action: "A Time Comes" (YouTube)

This new film (released 18 months ago today) by internationally acclaimed director Nick Broomfield celebrates the spirit of direct action. It focuses on six Greenpeace volunteers who in 2008 were tried and acquitted for shutting down Kingsnorth power station in the UK, in protest at the government's plans to build a new generation of dirty coal-fired power plants. Their thoughtfully staged defense included testimony from a NASA Director and leading climate scientist, and from environmentalist Zac Goldsmith.



Definitely worth a watch as a great recent example of direct action on the part of a pressure group. Hope you have a good head for heights!

Observer: Miliband to give public say in Labour leader contests

An article in The Observer this morning that ticks a number of boxes for Unit 1 students—from a Labour Party perspective, at least:

Ed Miliband wants to give public a say in future Labour leadership contests

In a speech to Labour's national policy forum, he declared Labour the "people's party" and said it had to become more "rooted" in the lives of the electorate if it was to regain support and respect. "A hundred years ago, when we were founded, people's allegiances were much more likely to be inherited rather than chosen," he said. "Today the world is very different. People are much more likely to choose that allegiance rather than inherit it."

Labour, stressed Miliband, could not survive as a "party of declining membership" but had to relaunch itself as a "genuine community organisation" that embraced non-members.

Miliband, who has been criticised privately by some Labour MPs for not making his mark on the leadership rapidly or firmly enough, insisted that union members would remain a vital part of decision-making. But aides said he was keen to see the public involved in future as well.

One idea could be to give non-Labour members a share of the vote in future leadership contests – a move that could anger the grassroots.

There were also some ideas about his own profile as leader and future party appeal:

The moves will be seen as Miliband hitting back at critics who say he is in the grip of the unions. Miliband tackled the issue head on, saying a system under which one person could have several votes in a leadership contest by being a party member but also a member of a trade union and another affiliated organisation had to change. He also said his focus would be the "squeezed middle".

Some commentators have suggested that this could be a somewhat fruitless / thankless reorientation, suggesting that in going for the "squeezed middle", Miliband may be going for the wrong group: 

Figures from the 2010 British Election Study, which is carried out by the University of Essex, showed that 35% of the working class did not vote. "Ed Miliband is focusing attention on the 'squeezed middle-class', but if Labour had appealed more to working-class voters, it could have won," said Paul Whiteley, professor of politics at Essex. 

Guardian: David Cameron reveals hints of a Bullingdon bully

Flashes of personalised humour at the expense of others undermine the prime minister's attractive courtesy, so says Michael White in The Guardian's Politics Blog today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/nov/26/david-cameron-bullingdon-michael-white

An article worth reading.... Those studying Unit 2 (that's all of you!) will need to be aware just how important a Prime Minister's personal style can be in regard to electoral appeal and effective government. White presents a balanced view—and presents evidence (particularly regarding the Speaker of the House, John Bercow) that is not all too damning just yet, but he also sounds a warning:

All in all, it's a troubling trait, and one the PM would be wise to rein in because, as the coalition's troubles deepen, he needs all the help he can get.

AV: Will they? - or won't they?

As the projected referendum on the FPTP / AV voting system for general elections nears acceptance by Parliament, the various sides of the debate are staking out their territory and their supporters.

News from all directions today... Firstly came reports that a number (five) Labour Party grandees had come out against a change to the Alternative Vote:

Labour veterans to oppose change to AV election system (BBC News Online)

Five former Labour cabinet ministers have pledged their opposition to changing the system for electing MPs.

Margaret Beckett, David Blunkett, Lord Falconer, Lord Reid and Lord Prescott all said they would campaign against replacing first-past-the-post with the alternative vote (AV) system.

Later came news that the "No to AV" campaign had been forced to remove the name of Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, from their list of supporters against any change to the electoral system:

Campaigners against voting reform in Gove mistake (BBC News Online)

Campaigners against changing the Westminster voting system have wrongly included Michael Gove on a list of politicians supporting their cause.

Those opposed to replacing first-past-the-post named a list of high-profile Labour and Conservative politicians who they said would back their campaign. But they were forced to remove the education secretary's name after his advisers said he was "undecided".

 Expect to see much more of this sort of thing as the referendum date draws near!

Labour pulls ahead sharply in Guardian/ICM poll

That didn't take long....! Mind you, nothing too fatal yet for the Tories, but I think Nick Clegg might / should be somewhat concerned for the LibDems...

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/22/labour-pulls-ahead-guardian-icm-poll

Labour has pulled ahead sharply in the latest Guardian/ICM poll, as both coalition parties lose support. The findings, published as Ed Miliband returns to Westminster after paternity leave, suggest only a minority of voters believe the coalition is taking Britain in the right direction.

Labour support in a theoretical immediate election has risen to 38%, two points higher than last month and the best in any ICM poll since Gordon Brown cancelled the planned 2007 general election.

Between them the coalition parties have shed five points. Conservative support has dropped three since last month to 36%, while the Liberal Democrats have fallen two points to 14%.

The Lib Dem score is the lowest in the Guardian/ICM series since May 2001, and the lowest in any ICM poll since October 2007.

Ed Miliband sets out 'profound' changes to Labour party

The Guardian has an exclusive first full interview published tonight with Ed Miliband, in which the new Labour leader reveals plans to review organisation and policies since winning the leadership contest...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/21/ed-miliband-profound-changes-labour

Some highlights:

Ed Miliband launches his party on "the hard road back to power", saying it has to move beyond New Labour and commit to changes in policy and organisation as profound as those introduced by Tony Blair in 1994.

He also appears to clash with the shadow chancellor, Alan Johnson, by saying a 50p tax rate for those earning more than £150,000 should be permanent, as a way of creating greater equality in Britain. Making the country more equal, he says, is one of the issues that gets him out of bed in the morning. In his first full interview since becoming party leader, and marking his return to work after two weeks of paternity leave, he discloses:

• A commission on party organisation will be launched this weekend. It will examine the rules under which he was elected party leader, including the role of the unions.

• A policy review will be conducted including commissioned work by independent thinktanks and studies by each shadow cabinet member on the issues in their field. "In terms of policy, but not in terms of values, we start with a blank page," he says.

• The review is likely to include low pay, tough crime measures including asbos, and the "contributory principle" in the welfare state.

• His main priority next May will be the devolved and local elections and not the referendum on the alternative vote. He says the Liberal Democrats should change the referendum date if they really want to win.

• He will stand up for the "squeezed middle classes", a group he claims Cameron does not understand.

 The full interview is to be found here: "Ed Miliband – no huskies, no north pole, but he's in for the long haul". Take a read - this will prove important for current examples / knowledge on Labour Party policies and ideas...

Direct action by a pressure group: Students!

The Guardian publishes a report tonight of a new campaign by a suddenly-much-more-vocal pressure group—university students—against the changed further education policies of the LibDems:

NUS starts campaign to oust leading Lib Dems
National Union of Students launch 'decapitation' strategy aimed at ousting Nick Clegg and other top Liberal Democrats in protest at the party's U-turn on tuition fees

The National Union of Students will launch a "decapitation" strategy aimed at ousting Nick Clegg and other top Liberal Democrats from parliament in protest at the party's U-turn on student fees.

The move aims to build on anger about coalition policies – which spilled over into violence on Wednesday – in Lib Dem-held constituencies with large student populations.

The key targets will be Clegg in Sheffield Hallam, Simon Wright in Norwich South, Stephen Williams in Bristol West and Don Foster in Bath.

Aaron Porter, president of the NUS, said the campaign would aim to force out Lib Dems who break their pre-election pledge to oppose any rise in tuition fees.

This, of course, constitutes a brilliant current example of direct action against the policies of a particularly well-placed political party and sitting MPs (including the party leader). Will it succeed in changing anything? We shall see...