By John Dyer, Guest Contributor
(John Dyer is an American dual citizen who relocated permanently to the UK in retirement from public life in the US. He now lives in Lytham St. Annes on England's West Coast.)
In advance of the 5 May, 2011 UK elections, pundits and politicians alike billed it as a bell weather of the British electorate’s feelings toward the Coalition currently administering central government for the country.
The UK has been governed by a Coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who have run the government since Gordon Brown and the Labour Party were booted out of office in May 2010. At formation, the new coalition partners received 59% of the vote. That will become an important statistic later.
In advance of the 5 May election, the British electorate was known to be reeling from the “austerity programme” introduced by the Coalition since taking power. This “austerity programme” is also sometimes called the “European Plan” after the measures the IMF required of Greece, Ireland, and Portugal in return for their Bailouts. It consists of draconian public service cuts and reinvention of how government delivers services through greater privatization.
As the Coalition took office, the UK was under significant pressure from the IMF, its own manufacturing sector, financial markets, allies, the Chinese, and Rupport Murdoch, among others, to reduce its significant budgetary deficit. Spin abounds as to how significant the deficit was/is, but the crucial point for this post is the fact that the Coalition decided to eliminate the budget deficit over the course of the Parliament (e,g, by 2015) largely through serious cuts to public expenditure. Compare that with current US proposals.
The Two Most Controversial Measures – Higher Education and National Health
The austerity measures included some of high controversy. Among them, the two most powerful to date have been changes to the financing of higher education and an overhaul of the National Health Service.
The Coalition shifted the cost of financing higher education from the government to the student in the form of loans, with the government carrying the paper. They also doubled the basic cap for tuition fees and tripled the maximum cap. While the government said it expected the new maximum cap of £9,000 a year ($14,580 at today's exchange rate) would be the exception, in the weeks that followed it proved very much the rule.
Last fall and winter, the streets of London literally ran riot in reaction to this proposal. Importantly, Liberal Democrats and its leader, Nick Clegg, had pledged never to agree to a rise in tuition fees. A great deal of their support during the election came from students and University related faculty and staff.
From “Competition” to “Choice” – Translation “Privatization”
The Conservatives went back on a pledge of their own, although they will argue they did not. They pledged to leave the National Health Service alone. Instead they have proposed a radical overhaul, introducing measures first described as “competition” then as “choice” but which everyone else translates as “privatization.” They have also proposed eliminating the current administrative structure in favour of consortiums of general practitioners, The Royal College of Physicians, the GPs and the College of Nursing have all loudly condemned the proposals.
The economy slowed to zero net growth over the past six months. The Coalition also raised VAT to very high levels. They countenanced major bank bonuses (although they did tax them). Labour’s cry became, “It’s hurting but it isn’t working.” That cry appeared to resonate, especially in the North, which has always been the “step child” of “The City.”
Initial Result: The economy slowed to zero net growth over the past 6 months.
Ink spilled in torrents as the pundits sought to predict outcomes and the politicians manage expectations In the end, the election was less revolt and more reestablishing pre-Blair political loyalties. It was also a reaffirmation of the practical political wisdom that the electorate is more engaged, if at all, by self- interest than by rarefied ideas.
The Defeat of the Referendum on AV
The referendum proposed that the UK change the method whereby candidates for the UK Parliament are determined winners. Currently, the candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of the size of the candidate’s share of the voters. Over one third of the Members of Parliament won with less than a majority of those voters who voted. In one case the Member was elected with just 29% of the vote. The referendum proposed to change the system from this “first past the post” one vote per voter for one candidate to a system of voters registering their preferences, in order of preference. If the proposed system had passed, on tally night the votes of the lowest vote gatherers would be redistributed to their second preference and then to their third preferences and so on until one candidate has more than 50% of the votes cast.
The Liberal Democrats were the most visible supporters of the proposed new system. They had the most to gain, it being calculated that they would have been the senior partner in the coalition had AV been in effect in the 2010 general election.
Pundits and politicians expected outraged voter retaliation against both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats for the austerity programme and the betrayal of promises made in their manifestos. This expectation was partially based on the background discussed above, and partially on history. By- elections normally go against the party in power much like mid-term elections in the US. Decisions taken tend to be “dis-satisfiers” rather than “satisfiers.” As the party in power is forced to make unpopular choices, it loses support.
The Expected and the Unexpected
But what actually happened on the 5 May Election Day was a surprise to the pundits although the impact on the Liberal Democrats was not. It was expected and it was crushing. They fell from 23% of the vote to 11%. That is 11% of the 52% of the eligible electorate who voted. The proposed Alternative Voting System (AV), their baby, the price they asked for agreeing to Coalition with the Conservatives, garnered just 31% of the votes cast, which represented only 42% of the eligible voters. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats were all but turned out of the Scottish and Welsh National Parliaments. Throughout the North they lost their local government seats to Labour. In sum, it was a disaster for Nick Clegg’s party.
That was the expected, but the unexpected was perhaps more instructive. Conservatives actually made a net gain in local government councillors, significantly, taking seats from their Liberal Democrat partners. Meanwhile, the Scottish National Party unexpectedly rolled to a majority in the Scottish National Parliament for the first time in their history, moving in just ten days from 10% below Labour in polls to a 10% margin over Labour at the Tally. Conservatives never even figured to be a factor. They and lived down to the expectations.
Spin an Apt Phrase
In the days that have passed since 5 May, pundits and politicians have once more drained their ink wells. Spin is an apt phrase for the different “takes” that the politicians pressed upon the public. Conservatives argued that the results reflect negatively on the leadership of Labour’s leader, Ed Miliband, because Labour didn’t do better and Conservatives unexpectedly made gains (albeit of a tiny number of seats).
The seats that the Conservatives did lose were in the North. Labour argued that the election proves the electorate rejects the Coalition’s economic strategy. Liberal Democrats and pundits argue that Liberal Democrats are taking the flack for the Conservatives. The Scottish National Party proclaimed a mandate for more power to be devolved and for a referendum on full nationhood (albeit not to be held for a while).
My Take
I, however, have my own “take.” It is much more basic.
The "No on AV" campaign focused a negative attack on Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats, and Coalition. While some Labour politicians joined the No campaign, the campaign itself was funded by the right wing of the Conservative Party. Prominent Conservatives including the Prime Minister joined the chorus.
The purpose and effect was to turn out the Conservative base. The threat to the traditional way of determining winners (which coincidentally threatened Conservative numbers in Parliament) galvanized the base. That had two knock on effects in the by- election.
It somewhat helped rescue the Conservatives. It could have been worse for Conservatives had there been no “No on AV” campaign to galvanize their voters and raise the turnout from typical by-election levels. Fewer would have voted. This phenomenon is frequently seen in California, where Republicans have been known to place initiatives on the ballot just for the purpose of galvanizing the faithful.
It also kept the Liberal Democrat’s failings in the public eye, especially damning coming from one’s Coalition partners. However, I don’t think it had as much effect as some pundits here have given it.
Here’s why. The seats that Labour took from the Liberal Democrats (and a few from Conservatives) were largely in the North. They had been almost entirely Labour until the 2010 general election. Exit polls suggest that what happened was principally a return to Labour of traditional Labour voters. These voters had become disenchanted with the Brown Labour government. Secondarily there was a strong a reaction of University related students and staff to the Liberal Democrats “betraying” their pledge on tuition fees.
The Real Import is a Return “Home” of the Labour Base
The real import, then, of the by-election is a return “home” of the Labour base that had been disenchanted with its own leadership under Brown. It did not necessarily signify broad based negative reaction to Coalition policies that triggered a shift of support from the Coalition to Labour. That jury, however, is still out.
The demise of the Alternative Vote Proposal is not, I think, primarily a retaliatory message to Liberal Democrats. While the “No on AV” campaign stressed negative ads on Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, the vote on AV more reflects the basic small “c” conservatism of the electorate. This I will explain in more detail subsequently.
When it came to voting, 52% of the electorate voted in the by-election, but only 42% voted in the AV referendum, even though one was handed the ballot for the referendum along with the ballot for the local election. AV not only received just 31% of those who voted but with only 42% voting this means that less than 13% of all voters supported the proposition. In short, this resounding defeat goes well beyond Party identification.
Voters Failed to See the Relevancy of AV to Their Own Lives: If It “Ain’t Broke Don’t Fix It."
I personally think it reflects voters not seeing the measure’s relevancy to their lives. This was expressed frequently on “Question Time,” a BBC show where voters “talk” in a forum with politicians and pundits about the topics of the day.
Much of the time, the electorate is more interested in how government policies affect their daily lives and standard of living than they are in philosophical questions like changes to electoral law. The” Yes on AV” campaign depended on a sophisticated philosophical interest in how politics are best conducted in a democratic society.
Without such an orientation one does not take the time to understand something that is different. Not taking the time, the small “c” conservative’s response is, “if it ain’t broke, why fix it.” The campaigning became dominated by politicians worrying about how AV would affect the safety of their own seats and the power of their Party. The “Yes on AV” campaign was unable to explain to the voters why the measure would be important to them. In short, it turned out to be a verdict of irrelevancy - not of retaliation.
Trends for the Future: The “Straw that Could Break the Camel’s Back”
Perhaps most importantly, the election of 2011 shows trends that may auger the future. The Coalition went from 59% of the vote in the general election to 50% of the vote in 2011. Now no one represents a majority of voters. Furthermore, the real impact of the draconian cuts do not begin to be felt until later this month. The "dis-satisfiers" will then strike home in fact as well as in anticipation. No government which does not represent the majority of its people can long continue in power in a democratic state.
The Liberal Democrats are smarting, but they are not about to bolt the Coalition, - at least not yet. A lot of energy goes into speculation as to whether the Coalition can or should survive, how long it has, etc. At the very least, it definitely shows signs of tension. Conventional wisdom is that Liberal Democrats cannot afford to bolt the Coalition. If they do it would bring down the government and trigger a general election, in which they surely would be pummeled, whether it was Labour or Conservatives who won.
Conventional wisdom is often wrong, but only time will tell. NHS reform could be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back" that does it. However, it is clear that this election was the end of the Conservative-Liberal Democratic honeymoon, maybe even the early prelude to the Separation. That tension is not necessarily good for the UK as it will almost surely usher in a period of political shakiness at a time of economic and social instability.
As they say, watch this space. It is a remarkable time for a political junkie to have relocated to the UK.