Guest slot by Alexander Drake
October 28th, 2007
Australia Decides 2007 - Part 1
Since John Howard asked the Governor-General for an election on Saturday 24 November, we have seen the first two weeks of the 2007 Australian election campaign, and in short - Rudd is retaining his substantial lead in the polls, and he has been the net “winner” of the campaign to date.
Since the start of the 6 week campaign, John Howard and Kevin Rudd have released their tax policies (both proposing substantial cuts), and met for the first (and only) debate of the campaign. Most pundits gave the debate solidly and clearly to Rudd.
The result of this fortnight so far has seen a swing to Labor, rather than the commentariat’s expectation of a narrowing in the gap between the parties. The latest Newspoll has Labor on 58% of the two party-preferred (up 2), against the Liberal-National Coalition, on 42 (down 2). I recommend using Newspoll as the yardstick for measuring how the parties are performing nationally. Newspoll appears in Tuesday’s edition of the Australian (www.theaustralian.news.com.au), and is the pollster of choice for Australian politicos.
In recent threads, and via email, I have been asked by other PB-ers whether the mood for a change of government is as emphatic as the one in 1997 in Britain. My answer to that is “in some ways yes, and some ways, no”. The dividing line seems to partially be based on age, and to a lesser extent, on region.
Generation Y - the YouTube/Facebook generation - seems to have most heavily swung to Kevin Rudd and Labor. John Howard is the only Prime Minister most of them can remember and they seem to be very keen for a change. Some of the Murdoch state-based newspapers have quoted polling during the campaign suggesting that around 70% of 18-24 year olds are keen for a Rudd government. On the other hand, the swing among older generations is less pronounced.
From a betting perspective, the figures on Betfair say it all - the weight of the money is very much on Labor winning government. But go a little deeper and look at the seat-by-seat betting. The vast majority of money bet on individual seats is tied up in Bennelong (held by John Howard) and Wentworth (held by Environment Minister, lawyer in the “Spycatcher” case, and leading republican, Malcolm Turnbull). Both men are defending previously safe Liberal seats with now-narrow majorities that should fall if there is a uniform national swing that is sufficiently strong to deliver government to Labor. However, both men are favourites to hold their seats. What might this suggest?
Consider where the leaders have been campaigning in this week. For example, Kevin Rudd spent some time campaigning in Kew, a wealthy area in the safe Liberal seat of Kooyong in suburban Melbourne, the seat held by Sir Robert Menzies. While I don’t believe Labor will win Kooyong, it suggests to me that Labor’s polling shows big swings to the ALP in previously safe Liberal seats. The Liberals may well hold on to the odd marginal - particularly outside Sydney and Melbourne - but we may see some jaw-dropping results within the big cities on election night.
Towards the end of the campaign, I’ll write another piece on the campaign, and a guide on what to expect on election night if you are interested in following it on the web. In the meantime, feel free to leave questions and comments for me on this thread.
Alexander Drake is a former adviser to a cabinet minister in the Howard government
MessageSpace Advertising
Excellent article!
I remember when Howard first got in back in 1996. Some Australians were over here and they had voted Labor before but gave their vote to Howard. It will be interesting to see whether their is a similar effect to 1997 here this time over their! I think that bloke who helped the tories has managed to pull elections back previously and could help Howard again. I doubt Howard will win though. Australian elections don’t really seem to be lanslides in percentage of the vote. I noted the parties are usually a few percentage points north or south of 50%.
If this Rudd charecter gets 58% that would be an amazing result giving the last 30-40 years of AS elections. Whilst i would admit i don’t really have a handle on the AS political scene: could it be the war on terror plus Iraq that has done for Howard in the opinion polls.
My thought is Labor will win by about 52% to 48% approx. That would be a good result for Labor, anything above that would be spectacular!
It would be highly amusing to see both Howard and Turnbull turned out of their seats which may well happen. For Rudd to focus resources at this stage of the campaign on safe Liberal seats though may well be asking for trouble. Well we’ll know in a month’s time.
Alexander - many thanks for a very interesting thread - it was as a result of your periodic postings on PB.com that I have taken such a large (for me) position on Labor at an average price of just over 0.7-1, a price which incredibly was still available as recently as last weekend, when I last topped up. Whilst the current price is a much skinnier 0.4-1, even this appears to me to be good value, bearing in mind that Labor is currently holding a 16% poll lead, although I realize that this does not translate to the same extent in terms of seats.
If such a lead existed for one or other of the principal British parties just four weeks prior to a GE, I doubt whether one would be able to obtain odds of more than 0.2-1, i.e. “shoe-in” odds, similar to those available in the case of Gordon Brown for several months prior to him succeeding Blair as PM.
I agree excellent article.
I think Labor will win but only just - the swing in the marginals is likely to be less than in the safer seats - so they wont get full value for the swing
Alexander, do you have any comment on how compulsory voting makes a difference to the outcome of Australian elections? (if any)
Whilst I see you are planning to write another piece for PB.com towards the end of the campaign, it would be helpful, in the interim, to hear of any significant changes in the polls. Regretably, thus far at least, the British media have taken a very limited interest in the Oz GE, apart from reporting on Rudd’s alleged visiting a strip club in NYC and eating his ear wax - Ugh!
5.Interesting question, but maybe Alexander answered it to some extent when he talked about the differing views of different generations in his article?
We know in this country that the 18-24 age group can differ wildly from the over 60’s, but because we don’t have compulsory voting here, we know which age groups views tends to be given more preference from the two main parties when they decide policy and manifesto’s. No surprise that the Libdems tend to do better with the 18-24(student) voter either.
Thanks Alexander for the article and thanks again for directing me towards a strong betting position on this election.
PBers who are not familiar with Alexander from previous postings should note that he is squarely in the tradition of posters like Sean Fear who call it pretty damn straight, whatever his own political preferences.
O/T Tote Ten To Follow Competition
There has been a very strong response to my invitation to submit a PB.com team entry and I will be responding shortly to all those who emailed me.
7. That’s partly what I was getting at, in Britain it would generally be considered that the views of 18-24 year olds don’t matter much because most of them don’t bother to vote. In a compulsory voting situation, their views become of much greater importance.
8 Yep, I agree and that comes shining through in his decisive style.
Alexander - as you’ve probably seen, Betfair are covering quite a number of individual seats - are there any which you consider currently offer real value?
10.Agree with you there, I would favour compulsory voting rather than all this tinkering with different methods of voting any day though.
13/10. I think if the decline in turnout in this country continues then compulsory voting must become a consideration. I don’t like taking people’s freedom not to vote away but really it may be the best option.
Excellent article. A couple of questions:
1. Australian elections in the past have sometimes seen differential swings in different states, often because of a particularly popular (or, more usually, unpopular) state government. Given ALP runs all the states, are there any places we should expect particularly large or small swings?
2. From what you’ve written people seem to be expecting large swings in the suburbs and in some upscale metropolitan areas (north Sydney is I guess the place I know best in Australia, despite my nom de plume suggesting familiarity with Queensland). Is this balanced by a smaller swing observed say in rural areas? And is it likely to be a realignment like the decay of the Conservatives in urban Britain or a temporary reaction to a particular political situation?
Compulsory voting in the UK? Never! Why should I be forced to choose between people I loatbe? Give me someone I can believe in or I’ll leave the decision to others.
It’s amazing how many people simply don’t understand the freedom of the individual.
I expect turnout will be 10% higher in 2009
16.Then with all due respect, you withdraw your right to complain about what others vote for….
16. “Compulsory voting in the UK? Never! Why should I be forced to choose between people I loathe?”
While I personally don’t support compulsory voting, I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and point out that under such a system, you don’t *have* to vote for any of the candidates standing. There’s usually a ‘none of the above’ option provided.
Or, of course, you could just spoil your vote…
Australia doesn’t have compulsory voting. You have to turn up at the polling station, but you don’t have to cast a ballot.
Great piece - and the byline at the bottom gives it extra credibility on top of its evident authority.
Only one question: does the Australian electorate typically swing strongly during a campaign, or do they generally end up pretty much where they started (which tends to be what happens here)? In other words, would it be unprecedented for a lead of that size to vanish in a few weeks?
19. Perhaps we should have compulsory exercise as well, if obesity doesn’t improve. Or compulsory use of public transport if congestion doesn’t. If the birthrate doesn’t recover, we should seriously consider compulsory impregnation as well.
An excellent artical by the ordinarily partisan Guardian, The stench of impunity wafts over the final act in this cash-for-honours farce/ Well worth a read…
17 You are not alone in expecting a higher turnout at the next GE but I don’t see it myself . Out in the real world apart from us political geeks interest in politics is at an all time low . Mori’s figure of 52% absolutely certain to vote is no higher than it was in throughout 2003 and 2004 at the same point in the last electoral cycle .
22.90 days detention or ID cards might be a reality then as well.
16. Then perhaps we should have a ‘none of the above’ box on the ballot paper.
;o)
22. We’re not far away from most of them anyway!
By the way the birth rate is recovering - all those immigrants you know…
O/T - I got polled by ICM today - usual voting intention questions plus some very interesting and polarising questions on immigration. I suspect someone is conjuring up a sensational ‘we all hate immigrants’ story.
27.Iain Dale mentioned something about a politician making a big speech on that very subject last week.
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/10/brown-to-spotlight-immigration-in-bid.html
26. We’re not far away from most of them anyway!
Really?
In a democratic society there are some civic duties that are incumbent on all citizens. In the UK we have jury service and the census. It is not unreasonable to argue that taking part in the electoral process should also be considered a civic duty, so long as we have the option, as Frank Maguire put it, to ‘abstain in person’.
Does anyone seriously think that the Australians are less free than us on account of compulsory turnout?
29. In some ways we already have compulsory exercise and did so for many years at school (although this has lapsed in the last ten years). I wouldn’t be surprised if some bright health spark is already proposing it again for all.
As for the compulsory public transport again I wouldn’t be surprised if someone is already touting the idea around of having ‘car free zones’ only accessible by public transport. We already have the congestion zone.
Give it 20 years and the way we are going both these will be discussed seriously.
As for the birth-rate - it won’t be increasing it that will be discussed it will be controlling it globally (a la China of previous times?)
Anyway all this is cynical crystal ball stuff from me that I don’t actually agree with.
;o)
[30] Or put it another way, is there a single candidate in the Australian election campaigning on a platform that includes the abolition of compulsory voting?
O/T, I see the Beeb is reporting that Cameron is considering EVOEL, which suggests to me that he thinks he might get a majority of English seats but not of UK ones. Hint to Our Genial Host - perhaps we could a guest article from someone with some knowledge of constitutional law as to the practicalities of EVOEL and also whether or not it would help the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
[33] More appalling proof reading (I really must get a grip, having fallen in love is no excuse) - [30] should’ve been [31] and the third line of the second para should have read “perhaps we could have”…
33.Which Scottish MP’s vote in English only matters, and why would it particularly help the SNP or Cymru? I would imagine that most Scots and Welsh will shrug their shoulders and say “what took you so long, we have been doing this for years”.
33. In the meantime you might want to read this repudiation of todays Conservatives proposals by the Campaign for an English Parliament.
http://thecep.org.uk/news/?p=242#comment-3119
It says it all really….
34. IA, pleased for you, but I hope your new inamorata doesn’t object to your time spent on here as I always enjoy reading your posts.
35. Simple example. Because of the Barnett Formula Scotland and Wales get more money if London gets Crossrail. It’s a good reason for them to get involved n’est ce pas?
[37] Many thanks, Kevin. She doesn’t know about them yet… it’s bad enough getting her to accept that I play “Civilization IV”
O/T LDs projected to fall to 8% in polls…..
38.The SNP don’t vote in English only matters.
34 In Gladstone’s first devolution bill - Irish Home Rule - concern over the “West Kerry Question” meant it was proposed the Irish would have lost all representation in the imperial parliament; this didn’t go down well so second home rule bill allowed Irish MPs to vote but only on matters affecting Ireland. If that was obvious to Gladstone can’t see why it’s not obvious as regards Scottish MPs.
The alternative adopted in the successful Asquith Irish home rule(which unfortunately for British history was never implemented) was to cut number of Irish MPs to 40% of what they had before - much lower than population should have allowed (as was case for Northern Ireland until direct rule).
There are currently in operation a Welsh & Northern Irish Grand Committee with the Scots one in abeyance - lets follow precedent and either use a Grand Committee or drastically cut Scots representation.
The Tory proposal for English votes on English issues may have some merit. But not under FPTP.
As part of a wholesale constitutional review, there may be something in it.
39.Is that like Medieval ll which is the in thing with my kids?
The Tory proposal for English votes on English issues may have some merit. But not under FPTP.
Aside from the FPTP/PR debate, my concen is that it simply is constitutionally workable: in the circs where it would be useful, you’d have a government in power but without responsibility. My greatest fear is that a dog’s breakfast of this sort could wreck the constitution.
Who should be entitled to vote on the Crossrail Bill? Should all MPs outwith London, Berkshire and Essex take a self-denying ordinance?
46 - That is a bit of a silly argument. England is a nation, London, Berkshire and Essex are not. The world over, parliamentarians generally deal with issues that are relevant to their nation. That is the way things work. The argument that this is not the best idea might have some steam in it, but that is not the debate we are having at the moment.
Back on topic, do we now think it is likely that Howard will loose his seat, with the polls going the way they are?
46.I find that argument a bit silly, all MSP’s vote on matters to do with transport in Scotland. In fact Alex Salmond made pledges to improve the transport links between Edinburgh and Glasgow in his speech today. Equally there has been some controversy with the proposed rail link to Edinburgh airport, surely something that requires funding from Westminster needs to be debated by Parliament?
Have the Libdems got any official views on WLQ?
There unofficial views seems distinctly out of touch. But I suppose if it doesn’t have PR in it it doesn’t really bother them.
49.I honestly don’t know and have never heard them utter a squeak on the subject. Any Libdems able to enlighten us?
48. The silliness is claiming that England is a nation. It isn’t and hasn’t been since 1534/1707 (take your pick).
51. Then nor has Scotland or Wales so why on earth should they have national assemblies.
Really don’t know the LD view on WLQ. I’m not THAT party political.
And as for Berkshire, mentioned above. It was abolished by the Tories. Doesn’t exist. All gone. All we have is pissy little unitary authorities.
51.Well you better tell the English Rugby and Football teams that, and mention it to the fans as well….
The only parallel I can find for the England in the UK issue is the Soviet Union. In the SU, one constituent part was far larger than all the other parts put together. Such was the dominance the the term Russian was used pretty much interchangably for Soviet in other countries.
Just as we may have regarded Stalin, a Georgian, as the Russian leader, I am sure most of the world thinks Gordon is the English PM.
51 - err, there is a difference between a nation and a sovereign state, you know?
53.I think it was jsfl that asked that asked that question on another thread as well. It got me thinking, and I realised that I don’t think I have ever heard them state a position on it.
Yes, an excellent article, Alexander. My only disagreement with you is that you are possibly suggesting, in your consideration of John Howard’s seat of Bellelong and Malcolm Turnbull’s seat of Wentworth (and others), that as the betting isn’t all going Labor’s way with individual seats, there is a possibility of a surprise result nationally. Not a chance, I say.
On ABC Radio National this morning was a spokesman from one of the Aussie bookies, saying that over the past week, the betting has all been on Labor (with several bets of $30000 and some higher), with literally almost nothing on the Coalition. As he said, it’s Labor’s election to lose. The ALP have at long last found a likeable leader, John Howard is over the hill, end of.
As to those individual seats, I think that Howard has a good chance of losing, but that Turnbull has a good chance of surviving. He is distancing himself well from the old guard, letting the media know that there were cabinet disagreements between him and Howard over Kyoto and the proposed Tassie pulp mill. Election night should be very exciting.
3. Peter from Putney, do you mean that my articles didn’t inspire you at all?
I confess that I filled up at an average of 1.9 before I wrote the first one, thinking that drawing pbc’ers attention to the strong chance of an ALP win when Betfair had them at that level would soon bring the price down!
OT, 23, A Man Named Bolted Horse, yes, an excellent article. I particularly appreciated the comment by ‘Judiciar’: We should have arrested the corrupt and conniving Blair officials, put them on trial, and let justice run its course. However, when we consider that Blair lied to the country about an unnecessary war, that he abused parliament’s confidence with fraudulent and plagiarised dossiers, that his government set an alltime low standard for incompetent cronyism… Well I never!
But hey, John Howard could run Blair close for the standard of alltime low, couldn’t he?
Alexander, I trust that you weren’t an adviser to a Howard cabinet minister at the time of the 2001 Federal Election, which Howard won by shamefully stoking up xenophobia and lying about refugees and “Kids Overboard”?
Re the WLQ, what (out of interest) is Labour’s current majority in England alone?
Presumably several past Labour govts have had a majority in the UK but not in England?
59.They have a majority in both England and Scotland at Westminster.
re 45 Labour with their half-baked proposals re devolution and Lords reform have already wrecked it.
59. If taking the 2005 General Election results, Labour hold (or held, not sure what the position is now) a majority of 43 in England.
Alexander Drake. A very useful article. Thank you. But one one criticism. It appears to me to describe the contest rather than predict it.
@ 59. Stephen Phelps and elsewhere, Peter from Putney, nail their colours firmly to the mast. Are you doing the same?
60 - i know, but what size?
I mean, if generally a Labour govt is very likely to have a majority in England too, then the Tory proposal (which I’m not keen on, btw) may be less objectionable as a (Labour) Govt could still get its (English) programme through. If Labour Govts have only rarely had a majority in England too (there seems to be a view that this is usually the case, prior to 97, but I suspect it’s an urban myth), then it becomes more of a problem.
re 55 but people make the mistake in thinking that Russia is a unitary state - it isn’t and never has been. It consists of 85 republics, oblasts, territories etc and is more akin to the USA than the UK.
1964 - Labour had a narrow overall majority, but the Conservatives had more English seats.
Off topic - did anyone else see this? It seems a shame for all those cartoonists out there that this story came out now
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7066389.stm
re 59
the 1945 government had an English majority of 154 (slightly less than their UK one
the 1950 government had an English minority of 4
the 1951 government had an English minority of 40 (Tory majority of 12)
the 1964 government had an English minority of 17 (Tory majority of 11)
the 1966 government had an English majority of 59
the 1974 Oct government had an English minority of 6 (Lab largest party)
all 1997 and subsequent governments have had an English majority
O/T but Respect has big trouble in Tower Hamlets . 4 councillors have resigned the party whip ( but not from the Respect Party itself ) .There is a thread on the Vote 2007 site about it . As far as I can see it is a battle between the SWP faction and the Galloway/Yaqoob factions for control of Respect both locally and nationally .
If Labour Govts have only rarely had a majority in England too (there seems to be a view that this is usually the case, prior to 97, but I suspect it’s an urban myth), then it becomes more of a problem.
Labour were in a minority of 5 in England in 1964; a minority of 11 in February 1974 (and, of course, a minority nationally) and a minority of 3 in October 1974 (although here, they were the largest party in England - even though the Tories had 52% of the vote in round figures). Of course, by-elections over the course of the last Parliament made the Tories the largest English party. In seat terms, the difference was narrow. IMO, unless the LDs really did fall to single figures, their strength makes a repetition of these figures unlikely.
But a situation where the 1974-79 situation did arise would make government really difficult under EVoEL.
69 - O/T Lib Dems are soon going to disappear into oblivion!!!!!
Good morning all!
I thought I would use one post to reply en masse:
5. Houndtang, compulsory voting definitely affects Australian politics. The way I explain it to my friends in British politics is like this. Think of Andy from Little Britain: “I want that one!” It is highly unlikely that Andy votes in Britain - he is the antithesis of your country’s political class - but his cousin in Perth or Adelaide does, because he has to. Right now, Howard and Rudd are competing for Andy’s vote, and in 1996, 2001 and 2004, he probably voted for Howard.
12. Hard to nail down definite value at this stage on Betfair Peter, but if you have a spare coupla bucks ready to take a punt on a dark horse, try backing Labor in either Grey or Cowper. Both look safe-ish on paper, but this is an election where anything could happen. Don’t blame me if they don’t come through though!
15. Mr Toad -
1. One theme the Liberal campaign is running on is the undesirable nature of giving one party control of every government in Australia. It has some potential, but it clearly isn’t working so far in the campaign.
2. Australian politics is far more fluid than British politics. Our “electoral metabolism” is much faster than yours - people “turn around” their negatives on parties and candidates faster here (most of the time). For example, Labor state governments were evicted, emphatically, in the early 1990s, in Victoria and South Australia. And yet Labor was back in power within a decade in both states (only seven years in Victoria). The lesson? A period of reinvention is needed, but not the same type of “decontamination”, as Cameron has sought to undertake.
21. Hi Nick - no, not unprecedented, but unusual. In 1993, Paul Keating went in to the campaign well behind John Hewson but came out the other end GAINING seats. However I don’t see that election as a suitable comparison to this one. Unlike Hewson, Rudd is running a “small target” campaign, like Howard did in 1996 - and it’s working.
33. Not to my knowledge, IA. Compulsory voting enjoys around 65% support in Australia.
The problem I have in EVOEL is the administration side.
If one party has more seats in England than the UK governing party, do we say that they have control of the English Grand Committee? And if so are they the ones who propose and impliment English legislation or is that still the job of the UK government on a consensual basis? Do we have an English First Minister or is it done on an informal basis? Do we have English cabinet ministers or none at all? Do the parties have to swap sides in the Commons each time an English matter comes up?
Frankly, it all seems a little messy to me. Thought through it could work. But just saying “Only English MPs should be able to vote on English matters” fails to pin down the specifics when you look at our political and constitutional setup and parliamentary/executive procedure.
Thanks for your excellent article and posts, Alexander. Is there any chance of a seat or two where Labor might lose against the UNS - say, a seat where demographics have been shifting towards the coalition parties in any case?
re 73 it’s not a problem. The UK government proposes legislation and it’s up to them to use their powers of persuasion to get it through an English grand committee. Government’s don’t need to legislate to saty in power.
I see Nick Clegg has set the cat amongst the Lib Dem pigeons by suggesting that he could do a deal with Cameron’s Conservatives in the event of a hung Parliament. I am not sure that what he is saying is terribly new but the way it is being reported is:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490325&in_page_id=1770&ito=newsnow
re 70 you’ve got your figures wrong. In 1964 England was C 261, Lab 247, Lib 3. In 1974 Oct C 253, Lab 255, Lib 8
73 - agree with that 100%.
The moral case for the Tory proposal is there, no doubt about that. But it just ain’t going to work.
Alexander, many thanks for another excellent article, and Stephen thanks for your input also.
O/T Argentina Presidential exit poll:
Kirchner 46.3
Carrio 23.7
Lavagna 13.1
Rodriguez Saa 7.5
Lopez Murphy 2.7
“No Hay Ballotage” - no second round as Cristina has cleared 45%.
Coverage: http://www.tn.com.ar/
Voting was extended for 1 hour in Buenos Aires - opposition denouncing problems with voting, queues, lack of ballots etc
58. Stephen, I apologise if I didn’t make it clear - I fully expect a change of government, and an emphatic change at that. My point I tried to make is that the Coalition may hold some seats near the bottom of the pendulum, but will be well and truly compensated by some seats further up. For example, I have speculated on this thread and earlier ones that Labor could win seats like North Sydney and Grey. This could well be the election that the “Doctor’s Wives” actually turn seats around (such as Nth Syd). As you ask, I was not working for the Federal Government in 2001.
63. stjohn, I’ve been predicting a Labor win this election for a very, very long time on this site. But I will save my predictions in greater detail towards the end of the campaign.
76 - Posh Boy Cleggy’s changed his tune then. Yesterday he was “going to destroy David Cameron’s claims to be a liberal Conservative”.
Perhaps “Mr Flip-Floppy Cleggy” might be a more appropriate moniker?
Thanks Rik for that article link - you know that I wouldn’t have read the Mail by myself - strange though. Saw the interview and he took a fairly standard LD line when asked the tedious question of ‘who would you support in a hung parliament (i didn’t think much of it). Perhaps he should have taken the classic - we are campaigning for every Liberal Democrat vote blah blah. Interesting, but if this story gets legs, it could hurt Clegg with the some sections of the party.
It’s not a good idea to go into coalition with another party with most seats if that party has not gained the highest number of votes, especially from a party that wants a fair democratic system.
Cameron has it half right with English votes, *but* only coupled with a PR system would you get rid of the two main areas of unfairness in the electoral system.
81 - as you well know LDs don’t do flip-flops, they do sandals.
83 - thanks for backing up my point earlier. At the moment Labour speak for England as they have most MPs in England. If the Tories really want to claim to speak for England by having more votes, they should oppose FPTP.
77: I did make a few, I see - but, in 1964, there were 511 MPs - and 246 Labour ones. The extra seat belonged to the existing Speaker, Harry Hylton-Foster (who as a Conservative, can be counted as an Opposition member - although, of course, he stood as “Mr. Speaker seeking Re-election”). With 256 seats needed for an English majority, Labour were 10 short, translating into a minority of 19. In February 1974, Labour were in a minority of 42. In October 1974, with 255 actual English seats, 258 needed for parity and 259 needed for a majority of one, Labour were in a minority of 6.
73 & 78 In Scotland the SNP don’t have a majority - their proposals only succeed if the majority from other parties agree; not unlike the Grand Committee if Labour doesn’t hold a majority there.
Unlikely that a party with an absolute majority in England wouldn’t be in UK Government - more likely if UK Governing party didn’t have majority of seats in England that no other party had an absolute majority (so for example Tories biggest perhaps, Labour close behind and Lib Dems with casting votes in a Labour administration with a smallish UK majority). No different from a minority government in a hung parliament.
What would be different is that Gordon Brown (if it were he) would have to get an overall English majority for proposals made and certain ministries would be expected to be led by English ministers. Might make it difficult for him to keep on holding his photo ops in English schools but that would be a benefit in my mind.
re 86 and more unlikely still if our FPTP system didn’t give Lab such a lot of rotten boroughs in Scotland and Wales.
Alexander - a great article. Sorry I did not appreciate it sooner.
Yes, an excellent article Alexander - well done. But how depressing it all is.
The Tory announcements today about limiting the area’s that Scottish MP’s can vote on in the House Of Commons, seems an entirely sensible proposal. As a result of devolution there is an obvious unfairness to the system, and the fact that Labour have been getting through legislation in England only, with Scottish votes has just confounded this problem. I’m afraid Labour have only themselves to blame for not sorting this out. I’m surprised its taken Cameron this long to make Scotland an issue.
What would be different is that Gordon Brown (if it were he) would have to get an overall English majority for proposals made and certain ministries would be expected to be led by English ministers.
But what these wouldn’t add up to is responsible government for England. An Opposition would, within Parliament, possess a majority, and could kill any proposal the government put forward. But they wouldn’t be able to make constructive proposals of their own, unless the government agreed to a working arrangement which would come close to an electoral pact - at the same time as each party would be opposing each other on a UK level; and, in such a situation, the UK government would have such a narrow majority as to encourage hard and bitter partisan fighting at that level. Westminster would be trying to do two very different things at the same time.
91 - shame we can’t undo the current mess by electing a UK Parliament passing legislation on key issues affecting ALL the citizens of the Kingdom, with very limited powers/discretions devolved to the Scots and Welsh, and perhaps to the English regions. I know this wasn’t the status quo before 1997; I think the arrangements whereby a Tory government could do whatever it liked vis a vis Scotland despite minimal representation there was wholly unacceptable and something could and should have been done about that by the Tories in the 80s/90s to dampen the demands for the devolution settlement we got saddled with - and which is now seemingly not ever un-doable.
92 - The difficulty is that there are too many issues which call for more than one solution in various parts of the UK, and which national government deals with ineffectively because it takes on too much - education and health are examples. Ideally, you could devolve these to cities and counties, in which case there’d be no need for any extra level of government, apart from in NI - but these units are just too small to cope with the demand and the more complex tasks, which helped central government engross more of their powers in the first place.
That’s why I’m in favour of regionalism all round.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,2201047,00.html
73: Yes, matt1 puts his finger on the difference from the Scottish system. Scotland has an executive branch who put forward proposals: they have to negotiate to get them through, but there is still someone taking the initiative. Having an English Grand Committee without an executive will be irrelevant if the Government is of the same colour, but completely deadlocked if it isn’t.
Say Labour wanted to introduce a speed limit of 60 on motorways, and the Tories wanted to put it up to 80. If there was a Labour Government and a Tory-led EGC, nothing would happen, because there would be no executive to propose 80 and no majority to pass 60. There are those who like the idea of fewer laws, but do we actually want to plan for deadlock?
95.”but do we actually want to plan for deadlock?” Isn’t that what the Labour government did by botching up devolution and leaving us with the WLQ?
IMHO the decision to use Scottish Labour MP’s to push through unpopular measures such as tuition fee’s compounded this constitutional car crash. Especially in light of a different decision being reached at Holyrood between the Labour party and the Libdems on just that issue. Nick, someone has to address this problem, because it is turning into a festering sore that will just get bigger, the Labour party burying its head in the sand is not an option.
96. Well said. Labour have brought this shambles on us. Its no good them whinging now. Where are where we are and its going to have to be dealt with.
97.I should add that I am not happy at the way certain elements of the Conservative party are behaving on this issue either. Sorting out this issue should be a pressing concern for all parties, and a viable solution should be seen as a positive move for all parts of the UK with cross party consensus being paramount.
Well for some in the Tory Party, I’m sure they see in the break-up of the UK as a way of destroying Labour in England, forever.
Personally, I hope a settlement can be reached on this, where-by the Union can be assured. It would be a tragedy to witness the break-up of the UK. Doing nothing is not an option, but lets hope a settlement can reached that leaves both north and south happy.
98.One more point, listening to the Labour party reaction to these proposals tonight made me think of the reasons why they proposed devolution in Scotland and Wales, and we why we had the voting disaster in the Scottish elections in May. Pot and kettle sprung to mind….
The only losers always seem to be the voters in these matters, funny that!
72, 80. Thanks, Alexander. Sorry for the dig!
Interesting that you’re putting forward the Cowper constituency as a possible value shot for an ALP win. Hey - I’ve lived there, up the coast from Coffs Harbour. A beautiful place. You could be right, even though it would be a major upset. All the best.
99.It would appear that the same group within the Conservative party who have always managed to screw up and shoot the their own party collective in the foot, just might do so again over independence.
I am content with the way the Scottish party are doing, and I voted for David Cameron in the leadership election, he was the right choice and will be a good PM. But I am afraid the that some on the right in the party and in the blogsphere make it very difficult for some of us to defend their views these days.
79. My Spanish dikshunry doesn’t tell me what “ballottage” means, but from the context I presume it meansd “second round” or “run-off” or whatever.
Just in case anyone hasn’t gathered, the winning post for a candidate in the first round of a presidential election in Argentina is 45% (or 40% (with a lead of 10% or more over the second candidate)) rather than the usual 50%.
Meanwhile, I’ve noticed in the last few days that John Howard’s odds on holding his seat have gone from 43/100 to 45/100 to 50/100 to 57/100. I get the impression that he’s the sort of dude who could hold his seat comfortably even if Labor wins a big victory nationally. (Not sure why though).
97. Why has it taken until now for the Conservatives to voice EVOEL? Had they articulated this position as soon as the Scottish Parliament came into being, I’d have considered it a very principled position to take but NOW no way.
I’m not exactly happy with the set-up but only in so far as we don’t have English Regional Assemblies delivering such benefits devolution has brought to the Scots and the Welsh.
Perhaps Labour should have put it loud and clear in its 1997 Manifesto that regional government would be established en bloc with single tier unitary local government beneath it, either with or without elected Mayors, across England, Scotland and Wales WITHOUT being subject to a referenda. It could only have been better than this patchwork quilt of things we have at present. A few Mayors here and there, but far from everywhere; two-tier local government here, unitary authorities there.
Hard there been English Regional Assemblies, there would, undoubtedly, be some variation, however, as to goals and objectives of the Regional administrations but that would have been for the political parties to address in their regional election campaigns.
England is too populous, too socio-economically and politicallly diverse to be represented by a single English Parliament. I’m in Durham; London might as well be on Pluto but I favour bringing decision making CLOSER on a range of domestic issues and Regional Assemblies would have done that.
BTW, first and foremost, I’m British not English and a staunch supporter of the Union.
Thanks to Alexander for his guest slot on the upcoming Australian general election.
104. Problem is, Dave, no-one agrees with you on the idea of regionality over nationality in England - you would lose every referendum for regional administration, with the possible exception of Cornwall. England is more unified than you think.
Loony @103: Have a look under balotaje, it’s an alternate spelling or summat. Ballotage sounds like they nicked it from the French.
Not sure if there’s anyone still awake over there, but re. regional administrations, I’d say no unless you can see a way around the following drawback.
In Australia, New South Wales is the biggest state by population and income. When the GST (=VAT) monies get divided up by a committee comprised of all the states, without Federal supervision, what happens every time is that all the other states gang-up on NSW such that it receives a disproportionately low share of the take. I cannot quantify the difference between what it “should” get and what it does, but it is massive. Meanwhile, the Federal Govt sits back and does nothing.
Similarly, my one experience of the South West Regional Assembly in England is this. Cornwall is a long way from the rest of the country and relies on one main road link, the A30, which is mainly dualled. Mainly, but not completely. One of the decisions of the SWRA was to delay by a decade the dualling of the last stretch, just 3 miles, a few miles at Bodmin Moor. Without that, it would have been dualled all the way to the Truro turn-off and delays would be eliminated. But the other counties ganged-up on Cornwall, to take the money which Central Govt had already allocated for the work, to use elsewhere. Apparently, there is nothing that Cornwall can do about it, so it has to make do with inadequate links.
So there has to be something, some central supervision, to stop situations such as I’ve outlined, which are clearly grossly unfair, from occurring.
106. Had the North East opted for regional government, it may well have benefitted from devolution, just like the Scots and the Welsh have. Our loss. We had the opportunity and we blew it. It wouldn’t have made us any less English.