This weekend’s second BPIX poll
There is also a new BPIX poll in the Mail on Sunday. The topline figures are CON 43%, LAB 29%, LDEM 16%. As far as I can tell the fieldwork was conducted at exactly the same time as the BPIX poll in yesterday’s Daily Mail (42/28/2018), so the differences between the two polls should be entirely down to sample variation.
They also asked people if they agreed with a list of policies announced at the Conservative conference. Most popular were cutting the number of MPs (supported by 75%), and tax hikes for the rich (76% supported ending tax credits for those on over £50,000 and 74% supported keeping the 50p tax rate) – despite that, the cutting of inheritance tax was also supported by 62%. Least popular were the raising of the pension age to 66 (suppored by only 34%, and opposed by 47%) and the public sector pay freeze (supported by 37%, opposed by 44%).
Filed under: BPIX, Voting Intention
On this level of support, the Lib Dems will lose half of their MP’s as well as Nick Clegg.
Was the saturday mail not 18% for Lib Dems rather than 20% and therefore the sunday mail 16% was not so different.
Looking at recent polls the probably present position is Cons 43 Lab 27.5 Lib Dems 18.5. In the coming weeks the Cons lead over Lab I’m expecting will increase by a few points, and the Labour lead over the Lib Dems to decrease.
Brown’s age and state of health may be a factor in coming polls.
I tend to disagree with Philip JW and believe it to be much more likely that the Tory share is a bit inflated by a conference bounce which will now begin to unwind. Labour seems to have held on to much of its own conference bounce – which many predicted would not happen ! – and seems to be at 28 or 29% .This is 5 to 6% higher than what polls were showing back in June at the time of the Euro and Local elections, and by the end of the year I expect to see Labour on about 32%
I don’t see any logical reason why the polls should go for or against any particular party in the next few weeks. There are some interesting issues out there and risks for all parties. If the ‘toffs’ attack on the Tories does resonate with the voters as some polls suggest, there is lots of ammunition for Labour to throw regarding vaguely sleazy links to big money men etc. A lack of any real good news on the economy gives Cameron all the ammunition he needs. Brown’s eyesight – heroic struggle against adversity or ‘blind one eyed Scotsman’ – could go either way so take you pick.
On balance I doubt there will be stasis in the polls, simply because things always tend to change over time. What that change will be, who knows?
Andy’s Election General Election Forecast: End Sep 2009 (Post Conference Revision)
Here is a re-run of the third of my forecasts for next year’s GE using past data now that all the conferences have finished. I have collated opinion poll data for the 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections (courtesy of this site) and am looking at the variance of the Conservative lead in the polls to their actual lead at the election and also the Lib Dem share of the vote compared to the actual result.
Every month from now until the election I will publish my forecast and then we can see how accurate it is come next May.
The following data is from the previous elections. For each year the first number is the variance of the Tory poll lead (or defecit) versus their actual result. A positive number means that they did better in the election than in the poll and vice versa.
The second figure is the difference between the LD result and their poll result – again a positive figure means they did better in the election than in the poll.
For each month I have taken the last 6 polls.
So the results for end Sep are as follows:
Base Data: 1992 +7.83/+1.97; 1997 +12.00/+3.55; 2001 -7.17/-0.37; 2005 -2.33/-1.90
Average: -1.13/+0.81
Note that the first figure is a weighted average (50% 2005, 30% 2001, 15% 1997 and 5% 1992)
Most recent 6 polls show a Tory lead averaging 14.50 points and a LD poll rating of 18%
The average Tory lead has gone down by 1.5 points since last month.
Based on this assumption my prediction for the GE is a Tory Lead of 13 points and an LD poll rating of 19%.
Assuming that the three main parties poll 90% between them would give the following split between the main parties:
Conservative 42% : Labour 29% : Liberal Democrat 19%
Giving a Tory majority of 70 seats.
Forecasts to date
July-09 Con 43%: Lab 26%: LD 21% Con Maj 120 seats
Aug-09 Con 45%: Lab 25%: LD 21% Con Maj 174 seats
Sep-09 Con 40%: Lab 28%: LD 22% Con Maj 34 seats
Sep-09 (revised) Con 42%: Lab 29%: LD 19% Con Maj 70 seats
Remember that in the words of Peter Snow this is “just a bit of fun” and not necessarily how the eection will play out next year. However the average so far is 42:27:21 which is very close to the current WMA.
I agree that the above comments regarding Brown’s age and health are going to be factors in the next few months. It seems to me that in recent decades a youngish, fit leader will be preferred to an older even if more experienced leader. Look at what happened to John McCain matched up against Obama, and of course not to forget Menzies Campbell.
We don’t have to look far to find a younger alternative to Gordon Brown, even if the policies might be different.
Brown’s not particularly old for a PM. What is he, 58? The problem is more that he’s so heavy, ponderous, and jowly looking in a time when energy and dynamism are prized. He always looks as if he just stepped out of a 1950s film about an exasperated accountant.
Anthony I think Davey is right and you are incorrectly showing the LDs at 20% in yesterday’s Daily Mail poll.
The paper stated “It puts the Tories on 42 per cent, Labour on 28 per cent and the Liberal Democrats trailing on 18 per cent”
i.e. the drop-off in the LD vote is more gradual than you suggest and one of the LATEST VOTING INTENTION figures is wrong.
Getting the polls in sequence of field date still gives a WMA of 42:28:18 and the CLead pretty much exactly in line with the mean. Looking at the retrospectives (which should be good given so many polls with essentially the same dates) give a CLead of 16 though.
Looks like the Tory Conference boost is declining as people realise what the policies will mean to them. We are back at where we started 4 weeks ago. Interesting side question in the Daily Mail on Sunday Poll (may have been the Express as my gym only buys these two comics papers) in that 30% of respondents said that they would still consider switching to Labour between now and the GE. Cameron’s support is still very fluid
After tomorrow’s expenses return I think previous poll positions will alter – ‘none of the above’ to get 50%
Mike – yep, he is indeed right, it was 18% (a four point difference between two polls conducted in the same manner (while theoretically perfectly possible) did seem a bit large.
Eric – I would be very wary of looking at an ICM poll showing the Conservatives at 45%, and then more recent polls showing them a couple of points lower and concluding that Conservative support is dropping. They are conducting different methodologies (most notably in terms of factoring in turnout and reallocated don’t knows), and in recent months ICM have tended to report higher levels of Conservative support than YouGov.
The survey question in the BPIX/Mail on Sunday did not say 30% of people would consider switching to Labour. It said 30% if people disagreed with the statement “There is nothing Gordon Brown can do between now and the general election to make me vote Labour” – in other words, it should already include Labour’s current supporters.
Anthony – it would be helpful if the “website” box were situated above the “name” box. It’s juxtaposition with the captcha code means there’s an evens chance of it being used erroneously.
KNK5
I apologise profusely for posting off-topic:
Can anyone help with a question I have: there used to be a think tank called Consult with a website called Consult-Interactive, but I’m wondering whether this think tank is still active – their website is still running but it doesn’t seem to be being updated. Are they still operational?
If anyone could help, I’d appreciate it.
Andrew Myers – another interpretation of your results is that the last four elections have been better for the incumbent than the polls suggested they would be. This would result in a much closer race than you suggest.
In fact if you play your figures back on the basis of incumbent / opposition rather than political party A/political party B and factor in the inconsistent constituency sizes it suggests a Labour win. Crikey!
Hi Anthony
Thanks I was struggling to find what I read – My intepretation is that Cameron is doing well, but a lot of it is still the Labour losing as opposed to Torys winning. I do not deny that a GE tomorrow would be a wipe out fo rmy party.
It basically looks like Con and Lab have gained a bit of ground – but not much,
as people get into the harsh choices, one way or the other.
It may fade a bit, but return to something quite like this, as this trajectory seems logical to me.
There has been a lot of nonsense on these threads.
Tories who think an even bigger landslide than Labour achieved in 1997 is going to be achieved, without it seems doing much work?
and tiresome Lib Dem supporters who think they will replace Labour.
Clearly neither of those two are going to happen.
It must worry Labour, however, that when they have a “good” period these days they can only seem to hit about 30%.
I think they will get a bit more than that in the end, but their hopes of building on 29/30 and seriously eroding the Tory lead may still happen – but it looks like a fading hope.
But the economy may have turned round a bit by May – but more people will be out of work, unfortunately, because that should be a concern politics apart.
John TT – that should be possible. I’ll have a fiddle about later.
Too much information Anthony!
“Graham
I tend to disagree with Philip JW and believe it to be much more likely that the Tory share is a bit inflated by a conference bounce which will now begin to unwind. Labour seems to have held on to much of its own conference bounce – which many predicted would not happen ! – and seems to be at 28 or 29% .This is 5 to 6% higher than what polls were showing back in June at the time of the Euro and Local elections, and by the end of the year I expect to see Labour on about 32%”
I think there’s plenty of unwinding to come… the recent Lib Dem v Labour spike will be interpretable in very different ways depending on whether the conservative view of Labour returning to the cusp of 30% prevails, or the radical view that Labour is in terminal decline towards the cusp of 20% prevails.
Both Labour and Tories have got significant dramas on the horizon unique to them and no other party.
Things are still very volatile, and could go either way.
The elections are still quite a long way a way in terms of room for events to trip up any of the parties.
@ Promsam – “Things are still very volatile”
Are they? I don’t think they’ve been particularly volatile for well over a year. Of course the poll results move around a bit but the overall picture has been fairly consistent – namely, a pretty solid Conservative lead that occasionally dips or spikes in one or two polls but for the most part is consistently in the 12-15 point lead range.
James Ludlow- expenses? Could blow the hole in a lt of people’s views…
Graham,
Labour did receive a conference boost, you say?????? I was not aware that their conference began in June!!!!!!
Promsan,
You are right, it is within the realms of reasonable possiblity for Labour to get anywhere between 20 to 30%. A lot depends on the strength of desire for change and the consequential turnout on the day. But in my mind the most probable figure for Labour is 25%.
Last year Labour did get a boost due to their message of no time for a novice from 27/28 to 31/32. Then they received a further 4 point boost due to the VAT cut. Come the new year people were disappointed that Brown had not prevented a deep recession. This disappointment remains.
This year Labour did not get a boost but the Tories did in reponse their message of hard honesty and responsibility. Unless something unforseen happens to undermine this message the Tories should remain on about 43%. For this reason 25% seems to me the most probable figure for Labour in the GE.
We still have the VAT rise in January. Although I don’t think it will have as negative effect as is it did positive because retailers do not draw attention to price rises as they do price cuts! But it might cost Labour a precious point.
Also as recent polls have demonstrated when the Lib Dems are not squeezed out of the media they can and I think will gain a score at least in the low twenties in the GE. This will squeeze Labour’s score at least down to the mid twenties.
A lot can happen in 6 months. The expenses scandal has surely already been factored in to peoples thinking. The economy is growing again, but unemployment will not fall in time. Cameron made a popular speech, but Osbornes economic policies have had mixed reception. We really need to wait until all this unwinds; as there are conflicting pressures both ways.
I’d expect the LDs to gain a bit at the start of the campaign as they get coverage (far too much in my opinion – it would be much fairer to equate it properly
to their size and even the 2005 result proves that point).
But in the second half, roughly, for them to be squeezed, which is what happened in 1992.
An election in harsh times with different views about spending etc. is not the sort of election where they do well.
“James Ludlow
@ Promsam – “Things are still very volatile”
Are they? I don’t think they’ve been particularly volatile for well over a year. Of course the poll results move around a bit but the overall picture has been fairly consistent – namely, a pretty solid Conservative lead that occasionally dips or spikes in one or two polls but for the most part is consistently in the 12-15 point lead range.”
Wait, sorry, so first you’re rubbishing my statement; then you slide in a rider; then another; then another… slick.
Lets just analyse your case… the last year… (obviously no images are possible):
2008 Q4: Tories wobble down from 45% to 40%; Labour wobble up from 30% to 35%; Lib Dems just wobble around 16%.
Tory Lead: about 10% -> about 5%
2009 Q1: Tories wobble even more between 40-45%; Labour slump about 5%; Lid Bems wobble up from about 16-18%;
Tory Lead: about 5% -> about 15%
2009 Q2: Tories leap up to about 45% and dive to about 35%; Labour join them slumping further from 31% down about 10%; LDP wobble around 18%
Tory lead about 12%
2009 Q3: Tories clamber back up from about 35% towards 44%; Labour sluggishly crawl over 25%; Dib Lems continue their wobble.
Tory lead: somewhere between 7% and 12%… hard to say
Of course, Others…
10% -> 12% -> 25% -> 12%
The others boosted by the expenses scandal + euros, and suffering from lack of coverage during conferences.
The consistent pattern is that Labour and Tory polling matches fairly well.
Although you can argue for the Tories plateauing at 40-ish%, the range of deviation for them has been less stable over roughly the last 12 months than before that period. The pattern for 2009 is distinct from the previous 3-4 years… the change being from proportional displacement of support towards parallel decline.
Of course we don’t know any kind of “turnouty” figure.
The Tory lead is only solid relative to Labour; and only predictable if one assumes that the next election will yield similar behaviour to previous ones… I don’t think it will.
I think the next election will be very different from any recent election, for a number of reasons… there are specific and potent differences at play, and the list is not short; but in summary I think the factors fall into these categories:
- events… crunch; expenses; foreign wars; cost of living; strikes; EU stuff
- technology… internet; 24hr media; novel campaigning tech/approaches
- cultural change… loss of tribalism/party membership; apathy; protectionism
@ Phillip JW
Your prediction would give a majority of 126 seats or so assuming a total of around 90% for the big three.
Whilst I would love to agree with you I just can’t see it being so high on the day – my gut feel is somewhere between 40 and 60 seats but I don’t think we will have a hung parliament as the lead has been consistently in double figures (bar the odd blip).
Philip.
You appear to have misunderstood my point. Labour has gained 5 – 6% in the polls since early June. The conference bounce is smaller than that because some recovery had already taken place. Nevertheless , the pre – Conference polls showed Labour in the range of 24 – 27 %. During the Labour Conference and since it ended the polls have come up with a range of 26 – 31 %. The most recent polls – conducted nearly 10 days after the Conference – put Labour at 28 or 29%. I submit that by any objective standard that does represent a bounce!
@Phil JW
My bet (and we are all betting here) is that:
- Labour are stuffed… but in ways yet to make it to the media.. 6 months of numbing grinding negativity from the media will drive us all up the wall, making the election a blessed release.
- Tories will not get a convincing win… the EU will damage them; as will deep held antipathy towards them that in some areas is arguably permanent.
- Libdems will not make a breakthrough, because their leader(ship) is unconvincing: they are neither fish nor fowl and that is their main problem.
- Others will do better than polling, and with apathy/turnout factored in will make inroads into third and even second place in a lot of places, with a handful of MPs as well.
Having said that, I’m sure that the end of year polls will not be dramatically different from what we’ve been seeing so far (I see no chance of Labour getting 32%!)… but some minor parties have real opportunities for free publicity coming up before Crimbo…
The trends are there, but the oscillations are significant, lending credence to the notion that a lot of the electorate really don’t feel strongly about the three main parties; rather, they feel strongly about particular issues close to their heart., which is why the opportunity exists for minor parties in a way it never used to in the last century.
@Promsan
I really can’t agree with you that the next election will be in any way “special”. Yes there will be debates and there is the expenses issue, but neither in my view is likely to alter the underlying pattern.
I think we are very much in 1979 or 1992 territory. A lead in the polls for the opposition, trials and tribulations for the Prime Minister, an expectation of a change of government. The question is whether it will be 1979 with the prospect of defeat solidifying towards the end, or 1992 with an overconfident opposition blowing it and the electorate playing safe with the devil they know.
Personally I think the odds are on a 1979, because I don’t think Cameron is as much of a numpty as Kinnock (and I don’t mean that in a partisan way) and because I think history tends to show that the Tories generally improve their vote in the run up to an election. I would guess there will be a Tory majority of 50-70 seats.
promsan
“The trends are there, but the oscillations are significant, lending credence to the notion that a lot of the electorate really don’t feel strongly about the three main parties; rather, they feel strongly about particular issues close to their heart., which is why the opportunity exists for minor parties in a way it never used to in the last century.”
You are right. While the main reason is the lack of a significant “fault line” in UK politics – voters get bored when the parties proclaim only their managerial differences within a single political philosophy, that isn’t the whole story.
Scotland has experienced a different political journey in this century. While their is an obvious fault line here – independence – many voters don’t confuse the issues of the constitution with party voting. We know from polling that some SNP voters don’t support independence, while a reasonable number of “Unionist” voters do. It makes politics here much more confusing and interesting!
I think there will be a Tory lead of about 9%, with a majority of 25-45 seats.
(41% to 32%)
Joe James B “I think there will be a Tory lead of about 9%, with a majority of 25-45 seats”
I have no idea of whether you are right or wrong. Please be more rigorous and explain how you justify your forecast. Why not put a caveat on it i.e. assuming no unforeseen circumstances? This will be some!
@ OldNat
Sorry to bait you again, but surely if you divided off Scotland-sized section of the UK, then the “political journey” would be different?
Scotland can hardly compete next to Northern Ireland for “specialness” in a political journey.
If it’s affiliation to a Celtic language, the Welsh nailed you long ago.
If you only counted the Home Counties, the Tories would hardly know what the Opposition benches looked like, let alone felt.
North-East and Yorkshire have such polarised votes that Hague’s and Blair’s constituencies bordered each other.
The South-West has generally voted for Liberals rather than Labour.
I could go on…
Correction:
“…but surely if you divided off ANY Scotland-sized section of the UK…”
Richard Manns
No problem – baiting is part of politics.
I wasn’t suggesting that Scotland was a unique phenomenon. There are non UK voting patterns in Wales and NI as well – more so in NI and less so in Wales.
Indeed with NI you prove my point. The Brits imagine that there is a polity called Britain – that you and the pollsters exclude NI already demonstrates that there is no UK polity. Anthony has already accepted that the only reason for including Scotland in GB polls is that that is what the clients ask for.
The difference between “ANY Scotland-sized section of the UK” and Scotland is that the political system is different. We don’t simply have a variant distribution of votes between the three main GB parties, we operate within a genuinely 4 party system in which a non-UK party forms our Government, and in which the other three branches of British parties pretend to be Scottish. What you refer to are the regional variants within the English polity. Similar variants operate within the Scottish polity.
Look at the polls, and you will see significant differences between voting intentions within our own polity, and the effect of a UK GE – when some SNP and LD voters lend their vote to Labour or Tory when voting in an international election for the UK Parliament. Conversely, at our other international election for the EU, the SNP gains votes.
@ Promsan – “Wait, sorry, so first you’re rubbishing my statement; then you slide in a rider; then another; then another… slick.”
A bit touchy, aren’t you.
The overall picture has been rather more consistent than your overview suggests. Fluctuations have largely been been between fairly narrow parameters, with a very few periods of higher volatility (the never-quite-high-enough Brown bounces, the expenses scandal). But for the most part the picture is one of Tories in the low forties and Labour in the mid to high twenties.
Perhaps we have different understandings of “volatility”. I’d consider the polls “volatile” if one week the Tories were ahead and the next Labour and so on over longer than a “blip” period, and we’re nowhere near that. It’s not even happened once for, what, nearly two years.
I think we may support different parties but Neil A regularly mirror my analysis (or vice versa)
I too think ‘79 is on the cards but with a higher LD and others vote.
This means there is a chance of a hung parliament.
Also the boundaries are working in Labours favour -with current ones ‘79 would have been close to being hung.
I am beginning to wonder what might happen if Brown announced in Feb he was going on health grounds, that there would be a leadership contest followed by a GE and he would stay on as PM for the duration of both.
My understanding is that there is a real differences in the parties finances. i.e. Lib Dems have little, Labour have less than in previous elections and the Tories have more.
What impact is this expected to have in the run up to the election and on the marginals?
@Neil A – “history tends to show that the Tories generally improve their vote in the run up to an election”
I understand what you are thinking, but I just don’t see it this time. Virtually all the elections you and others base this assumption on are ones where the Tories were either unpopular and in a poor second, or where the polls were relatively even. There is no evidence at all to suggest that a Tory party on a historically high base (very high if you want to take the ICM 45 score) will go even higher as the GE approaches. It’s far more likely that the Labour vote will rise from an extraordinarily low base, but even here we are in new times so I wouldn’t want to predict this outcome.
Well as a complete political novice but great follower of Polls and statistics I’m going to stick my neck out and go for a 1979 result, which considering the enoromous mountain the Conservatives have had to clime will still be a remarkable result.
So I predict Con 42 Lab 30 LD 18 and a comfortable majority of 40-60 seats.
Its the Marginals that people should be really watching because if you check out the local polls in these constituences the Tories are way ahead in most of them.
I strongly believe most people have already made up their minds that after 12/13 years Labour have had their chance and are now finished and whether they genuinely support the Tories or not they long for a change to be rid of a worn out Brown and the failed New Labour project!
@ OldNat
“…is that the political system is different…”
Well, if non-national parties are what you’re looking for, Spain is full of them. The CDU/CSU alliance in Germany is quite well-known, and in Catalunya in Spain, the largest party in the Generalitat is CiU, a Catalan nationalist party. In Andalucia, they regularly vote for Communists. In India, state elections in Tamil Nadu have been dominated by Dravidian parties for 4 decades.
In contrast, the SNP has only become relevant to government within the last decade and even your party leader lost his seat in ‘87.
“…the other three branches of British parties pretend to be Scottish…”
It’ll be a dark day in politics when SNP members think they can define Scottishness by political allegiance.
“Look at the polls, and you will see significant differences between voting intentions…”
And you’ll see the same throughout the UK. Do you think that UKIP will really be the 2nd party in the UK in 2010?
Craig – it’s the deficit he’s trying to halve, not the total debt.
Although how he intends to halve the deficit with all the spending plans announced at the LPC is beyond anyone with mathematical ability.
Interestingly, even if the deficit were to be halved, we would still be borrowing £87.5bn per year in 4 years’ time – an absolutely obscens amount of money which cannot be sustained. The stark truth is that whoever is in government will need to reduce the deficit to 0 within a maximum of 10 years or the country will be stuffed.
For obscens read obscene.
Further to my last post – the UK will need to start running a budget with large surplusses to pay off some of the debt, which could conceivably be at £2tn within the next decade or so. There is of course the thorny issue of how this is to be achieved, but in any case, the fact of the matter is that the pain will last a lot longer than one parliament.
Plus, of course, Gordon wasn’t telling the truth when he said he’d done away with Boom and Bust.
Within little more than a decade the economic cycle will have turned full circle, and after a few years of good growth we will have another recession. Unless we eliminate our deficit soon we will yet again not be in a position to finance anti-recessionary measures (and will have to overborrow all over again).
But enough of this partisan stuff. When’s the next poll?
Alec,
Not entirely sure what point you are trying to make in reponse to Neil. Is it that:-
a – history does not show an improvement in Tory vote as an election approached ? or
b – the Tories cannot expect to see an improvement in the (6 mth) period prior to the election campaign ? or
c – the Tories cannot expect to see an improvement during the election campaign ? or
d – the Tories cannot expect to rise above current polling levels (42-44%) in an election, with 45% as a maximum conceivable ceiling ?
The evidence from the past 60 years indicates that (a) is indeed the case, hence (b), whilst not certain, is at least likely if not probable. Re (c), again, evidence from recent decades indicates that this has happened more often than not, with actual figures for Con lead/deficit on the day often higher/lower than the last polls.
As to (d), until the 1997 disaster, the Con vote had been in the 42-44% range for each of the four previous elections, and in the past 80 years has only fallen below 40% in elections they did not win. Moreover, the biggest blow to your argument is that in 1970 – an election which the polls indicated Labour were likely to win, the finally Tory tally was in fact 46.4% – ie above your “historic high”.
In fact, if one looks at the track record for Tory share in those elections where a Con Govt replaced a Lab govt, only in 1979 was the Con vote below 45%.
So, what is your evidence for saying: “There is no evidence at all to suggest that a Tory party on a historically high base (very high if you want to take the ICM 45 score) will go even higher as the GE approaches. ” ?
Frankly, if the Tories go into a GE campaign on 45% in the polls, I don’t think it makes any difference whether they campaign well or hash it up completely. 45% is a Landslide figure for the Tories in the current environment.
Whoever wins the next election is going to have their work cut out being more than a one or at most two-term government.
The UK electorate has a limited threshold for “necessary pain” (recall what happened to Edward Heath after he introduced the three-day week). Blaming the previous government (Tories) or the evil bankers (Labour) will only wash for a couple of years. We are in unknown territory with the prospect of austerity measures for a decade.
And if that doesn’t do for the 2020 election, what about the power cuts following the decommissioning of coal-fired powers stations in 2016 as a result of years by both parties of avoiding the issue of replacement by nuclear? And the cost of a Trident replacement? And the postponement of retirement age?
There appears to be agreement that the Tories will win, although there is debate on how well.
Has anyone a view on whether this is a good election to win or lose?
I would suggest that 1979 and 1997 were good years to win, being wise after the event, although 1979 was obviously an excellent year despite industrial problems, with oil and gas being brought on stream.
1970 and 1992 were particularly bad years to win. I am not convinced that if major had lost in 92, labour would have avoided the sterling crisis, and if they fell into the same trap, they would have undermined the public’s view of Labour’s economic competence.
I think Leslie has answered my question as I was composing it. A bad election to win.
Davey,
Not sure why you think 1970 was an election worth losing – even in hindsight. The 1973 oil shock set the fuse for inflation over the next decade, but a stronger or more effective government need not have fallen in Feb 1974. Heath was really never up to the job.
In 1992, the only likely difference a Kinnock victory would have made is that the Sterling Crisis would have been in June not September. John Smith was even more committed to the ERM / EMU process than Major or Lamont. Had Kinnock won by a small margin in 1992, or even led a minority or coalition government, it is possible, even probable, his government would have then fallen over the Maastricht ratification. This could even have united the Tories on Europe…
Yes, 1992 was definitely a good election to lose !
Richard Manns
Thank you for making my points so effectively. All the non-UK parties you mention operate within federal systems, but since we were discussing politics in the UK they are irrelevant (clue – the name of Anthony’s blog).
It isn’t the SNP who adds “Scottish” to the names of the other parties. “Scottish Labour” is not a political party, but a name used by the Labour or Conservative Parties when campaigning in Scotland.
If you had checked back to my original post, you would have noted that I was referring to this decade – ie post-devolution. It seems to me that you really haven’t understood its effects.
With asymmetric devolution, the election in England is fought as a single campaign with your domestic affairs concatenated with UK wide matters. That is not true elsewhere. Voters in every region of England are voting on their perceptions of the different parties in that context. Your debate on the NHS, education, transport, etc are irrelevant here. Outwith England, the only relevant issues are whole UK ones such as Defence and macro-economic policy. Even the EU debate (which is essentially a constitutional debate) is a bit different here, as it is concatenated with other constitutional issues relevant to us.
Sorry, but your attempt to suggest that Scottish politics is no more variant from some GB average than the South-West doesn’t work.
Old Nat,
Your posts to Richard (with which I broadly agree) raise some interesting questions for SNP performance at the GE.
If, in Scotland, the electorate are sophisticated enough to deconstruct those policy areas which fall within the different remits of Holyrood and Westninster, then, it logically follows that, when placing their cross for a Westminster MP, they will be looking at the policies / priorities of the contenders in rspect of those areas of competence.
As you note, many “bread & butter” issues are devolved and outwith the control of Westminster. Ergo, the performance of the SNP at Holyrood in dealing with those issues is almost irrelevant when considering UK wide questions.
But what of the SNP position on “reserved” issues such as macro-economics, taxation, defence, foreign affairs and Europe ? In many cases, the SNP position is either only thinly sketched or litle differentiated from that of other parties. I think only opposition to Trident and “Independance within Europe” are clear and distinctive policies. each will undoubtedly have some appeal, but are either deciding isseus for that many voters ? Is there not a serious danger for the SNP that in a Westminster election it may be repository of protest votes, but in tight individual contests may struggle to put a credible case for its candidates who will not be sitting on the government benches at Westminster whatever the overall UK outcome ?
This may be a partcular problem for the SNP in its northern heartlands where many have taken an SNP victory over Tory challengers for granted. It will be less of a problem in close SNP / Lab contests or where it is a choice between SNP or LD – though there are few of those, and the two most obvious are also 3-way contests with Con.
Paul
I had a lovely mini-essay on British economy history prepared, but it was killed by the Captcha demon. Here’s what I can remember-
1970 was indeed a potentially good year to win. Labour belated but necessary and ultimately well-handled devaluation had sown the seeds for good growth, while the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971 meant a potential end to the “Stop-Go” economics of the clandestine gold standard and fixed exchange rates.
However, Heath’s government was also the most Keynesian ever to take power in the UK. First it tried a strict incomes policy, which any modern economist (Keynesian or not) could tell you is a hopeless way of dealing with inflation, as Nixon also found out. Second, it tried a class Keynesian expansion as a way of getting round unemployment; the result was the money supply went wild and high inflation followed BEFORE the October 1973 oil shock.
Put the 1979 Thatcherite government in power in 1970 and they’d have reigned throughout the decade. As Japan and Germany (two nations far more dependant on Arab oil than the UK) demonstrated in the 1970s, there’s no necessary connection between high oil prices and inflation. If the money supply is totally stable, high oil prices don’t have a long term inflationary effect at all; if the price of one product goes up, people have to spend more on that product and less on other products, so the prices of other products goes down.
I do feel sympathy for the Labour government of 1974 onwards. They had to deal with the Keynesian’s mess, but weren’t in a political position to take tough measures and didn’t know that incomes and prices policies were snake oil. 1974 was the worst year of all to win.
Davey
1979 was a bad year to win. Look at the statistics for almost any country from 1979-1982: they are horrendous. The world crisis of that period was even worse than 1973-1974, in that it affected the Second World as well as the First and Third: the Soviet economy had a very tough time from 1979-1982; Poland’s economy collapsed; even the GDR and Bulgaria slowed down. The US economy in 1982 had its worst contraction in post-war history etc. It was only because of monetarism that, as if by a miracle, the British economy managed to actually grow in 1982. Often British economic fortunes are determined by world trends, but in 1982 the world had a crisis while Britain had a recovery. 1979 was in itself a bad year to win; only Howe’s (crude but effective) brand of monetarism and Thatcher’s decision to fight for the Falklands saved the Tories in 1983.
I would also argue that 1987 was a bad year to win, though it was all the Tories’ fault. Lawson’s abandoning of monetarism in October 1985 resulted famously in the Lawson Boom, which was largely based on unsustainable money supply growth and left the economy in a total mess by 1989. Even if the ERM fiasco hadn’t occured, the Tories would have had a tough election battle in 1991-1992, especially with the rest of the world facing difficulty at that time.
All of this has very little to do with the polls, but it does show that sometimes a “bad win” can not be totally disastrous for a government. The Tories won 2 bad wins in 1979 and 1987, but went on to win the next election. Economics is important but it isn’t the be-all and end-all of history, though I wish that was the case since it would make history much simpler!
That should be Keynesians’ in paragraph 5.
Old Nat – to clarify (and not intending to be rude):
“the performance of the SNP at Holyrood in dealing with those issues is almost irrelevant when considering UK wide questions”
The SNP position is not that dissimilar from that of a very successful local ratepayer’s alliance which dominates a lcoal council (of which there are a fair number in England) but has little / no impact on the parliamentary seat. Even when these local groupings win the parliamentary seat – as did KKH in Wyre Forest – they have no influence in the House of Commons.
The SNP, Plaid, the various NI parties, or indeed even the Lib Dems, will only have influence in the House if the overall result is close, but there is little they can do to ensure the outcome is a hung parliament.
Bill,
Thanks for underlining my point that 1970 was not a bad election to win. Heath’s troubles in Feb 1974 were more down to his (and Barber’s) errors. I quite agree that had the political philosphy of Joseph & Thatcher as expounded in 1979 been applied in 1970 the outcome would have been very different.
However, one must always recognises that hindsight is not just of benefit to historians. The radical policies espoused by Sir Keith Joseph (and Enoch Powell for that matter) would never have been politically acceptable even in the Conservative party had it not been for the lamentable expericence of the 1970s (including up to 1976/7).
Sometimes one simply has to make mistakes in order to learn from them.
Anthony,
Post in moderation……
Is that because I mentioned te former MP for Wolverhampton SW (later an MP in Ulster) ??
Intrigued
Paul
Can we keep it a bit more guys please.
Basically unless there is a BIG upset by next May the Conservatives will form the next government because most people who bother to vote have already made up their minds that Labour is finished and worn out after 12 wasted years!
Also as the Local council elections will fall on the same day we should see Labour almost totally wiped out in many of our Town Halls up and down the country.
Also remember the Scottish problem – quite a lot of English voters have been sick to the back teeth of constantly seeing and hearing the Scots running the UK Government.
England is basically Conservative and possibly without Scottish or Welsh MPs Labour would probably never govern England ever again!
Mark
I think “quite a lot of English voters” is an exaggeration. Liam Fox is one of the most popular Tories and even DC’s name betrays his origins. If Brown loses, he can’t blame it on his rolling r’s.
It’s also an exaggeration to say that “England is basically Conservative”. Large portions of England have not voted in a Conservative MP in quite some time. What is the statistical basis for this statement?
Pure fact Bill – You prove otherwise!
Read the statistics of the breakdown of votes from the constituent countries that make up the UK and England is basically Conservative with the exception of the so called Labour Urban strongholds and even they are much weaker now!
Mark,
Better check your facts again. (If in doubt, go to the House of Commons Library for more data).
While it is true that Conservatives won more votes than Labour in England in 2005, this was not true in either 1997 or 2001. Moreover, even in 2005, Labour won a majority of seats in England.
Overall, England may be more conservatively inclined than Scotland or Wales, but it has very rarely ben the case that Conservatives have won a majority of seats in England, only to be denied by Labour majorities in Scotland and Wales. In the two instances where this did happen (1950 and Feb 1974) there was another election within a year which resolved the matter.
Have I proved otherwise to your satisfaction ?
“Also as the Local council elections will fall on the same day we should see Labour almost totally wiped out in many of our Town Halls up and down the country.”
I wouldn’t expect that to be the case. The local councils up for election in 2010 were last fought in 2006, so low turnout mid-term elections when Labour would have struggled to get their vote out (and pretty poorly they did too).
If the GE is indeed on the same day as the locals, it will get out lots of Labour voters who would otherwise have stayed at home. If they happen on the same day, I’d expect Labour to make significant gains in the local elections even if they get annihilated in the General election.
For comparison, in 1997 the Conservatives made significant gains in the local elections held on the same day as the General Election where they suffered humiliating defeat.
Mark,
Sorry, it was also true in October 1964, but then again there was another election in 1966 which produced a clear majority all round.
Note that in all the instances cited, the overall result was very close – and in Feb 1974 there was no overall majority, while even the second election only had a Lab majority of 3 (same as in 1964).
Combined duration when a Tory England has been subjected to Labour is only about 3 years. Conversely, Scotland has not delivered a Tory majority since 1955 and Wales has never done so.
As to the second part of your argument, I think you will find that if you exclude the urban central belt, Labour does not hold a majority of Scottish seats. What does that prove other than that Labour appeals more to urban than rural areas – no great surprise there.
Anthony,
Will the polls resume as normal from now on ?
Isn’t ICM Guardian due about now?
thanks
Mark
Paul has done my job for me (and he’s done it very well indeed, if I may say so) showing that, while the Tories are indeed stronger in England than anywhere else, it’s a huge exaggeration to say that England is basically Tory. The Tories narrowly won the popular vote in 2005; that’s hardly comparable with the dearth of Tory success in Celtic Britain.
England is closely divided between the Tories and Labour, with the Lib Dems a competitive third, ie. a reflection of the composition of the UK parliament. Since the vast majority of the seats in the UK pariliament are English, as is the vast majority of the population, this is not surprising.
This is a little off-topic, but I hope not partisan. I spend a lot of time thinking about the situation that has been highlighted by Oldnat and other SNP supporters here, which is that the GE campaign is largely irrelevant to Scottish voters.
This seems to be the “electioneering” side of the West Lothian Question, and so can only truly be solved by solving that as well (ie scrap devolution, create an English parliament or *shudder* create English regional assemblies). In the absence of those options, I wonder if there is anything that can be done about it.
One possibility would be for the UK-wide parties to agree that they would each run separate campaigns for the UK-wide and England-only parts of the election. With different slogans, different posters/flyers etc.. English voters would be “subjected” to both campaigns (much as voters are when there are, say, local and Euro elections on the same day). It could even solve the “who gets to debate” problem, with separate debates for the England campaign and for the UK one (with different broadcast areas and different rules for participation). It would be a little odd to have a Scotsman representing a Scottish constituency debating with English MPs about policy for England, but that would just highlight the absurdity of the situation we are in.
ICM won’t be tonight (if it had been, then I think their contract with the Guardian would have prevented them doing the poll for the News of the World on Sunday), however Populus should be out later on tonight.
This is the first post-conference Populus poll? That would suggest we’ll see an ephemeral Tory boost.
Neil,
If you have a solution to the West Lothian Question that doesn’t annoy someone whose support is vital to the implementation, a knighthood awaits.
The best solution I can think of would be that all parties adopt the rule that the SNP has: don’t vote on English-only legistlation. This has two problems, one of which is soluble and one of which probably isn’t-
Problem 1: English-legistlation is often ambigious. Often, within a law, there will be sub-clauses which apply only to England. This can be solved by not having a formal parliamentary rule and being governed by common-sense, which is what the SNP do.
Problem 2: It’s in Labour’s interest not to abide by the rule. I have no idea how to solve this issue while still solving problem 1, since a Tory government introducing a formal rule falls foul of the problem of ambiguity. Perhaps the Tories will have more success in Scotland in future and thus either cancel out Labour’s interest or (more likely) the Tories will lose interest in solving the West Lothian Question once it doesn’t cause them any problems at all. Even more likely, a gigantic swarm of pigs will fly across the country to Westminister and bribe the Labour party into compliance with a massive collection of hen’s teeth.
Paul H-J
Re your later posts. I’m always surprised by the urban myth in England that Labour is always foisted on them by the Scots and Welsh. It’s very reminiscent of the grievance politics in Scotland in the 1960s and 70s that “the English were to blame” (actually it was a Russian referee
)
To your substantive questions, however.
If we had decent polling, it would be easier to answer! However, the obvious distractors are that a number of people on the Scottish electoral roll identify themselves as primarily “British”, many are not sophisticated and are the recipients of a GB news output that portrays much of English social policy as “British” etc.
I initially said that we were on a journey, and such distractors will diminish with time, but are still relevant.
As to SNP policy on reserved matters you are right – SNP MPs will not (and never want to) sit on the Government benches at Westminster. Hence on defence and foreign policy, the critical position to hold is one which resonates with Scottish attitudes which are different from the British establishment and followed by both Tory and Labour – nuclear weapons, interventionist foreign policy, pretending to be a “world power” etc. Much of the macro-economic argument stems from an independent Scotland simply not needing to spend money on such sectors.
Oldnat,
And an urban myth it most certainly is, since not only is it based on a misunderstanding of the urban / rural distribution of party support, which is just as evident in Scotland and Wales save that they actually have a higher proportion of their population in urban areas, it is also, like most urban myths, based on a fallacy.
As an English unionist who values Scotland’s contibution to the Union I always find the “let’s get rid of Scotland” attitude even more abhorrent than the SNP desire for independance (yet subjugated to the EU).
On your final paragraph, while there is an element of integrity in the SNP stance, this is what divides them from the Lib Dems (however deluded they may be in their aspiration to be the governing party). I believe that this may prove to be the achilles heel in the SNP’s campaign at the GE – though conversely it will work in their favour at elections to Holyrood.
As to defence and foreign policy, if, as you assert, the SNP positions reflect a majority view within Scotland, then this is a logical line for the SNP to take. The problem is not so much their stance on the issue as the “salience” thereof. Somewhat similar to the problem we have in England with Europe. A large number of the English (possibly a majority) would agree with the basic precepts of UKIP on the EU, but do not consider this to be of such overwhelming importance that it over-rides the core policy divide between Con and Lab. Translate trident to EU then ask if this is a solid platform for SNP victory in a GE.
I think the SNP may find the GE is not as easy as they believe, even if they get bouyed up beforehand by a by-election victory in Glasgow NE.
Paul H-J
Actually I don’t know anyone in the SNP who thinks a UK GE will be “easy” – and an SNP win in Glasgow NE seems unlikely. Unlike Glasgow East, this constituency has very few “aspirational” voters – which was the group that allowed Mason to win.
I was at the Theatre Royal in Glasgow a few months ago and overheard Lord Foulkes (Labour peer and MSP) telling a friend about Glasgow NE voters – “They’re all underclass”.
Bill,
A Federal United Kingdom with equal sister-parliaments in the four home countries, and a federal senate dealing with UK-wide issues (perhaps housed in the current House of Lords buildings) would solve the West Lothian Question. I am sure it would annoy plenty of people, but I’m not sure why. The only real objection would be that it rips up the current arrangements and starts afresh. I am as conservative as they come, and given the mess the current government has made of our constitution even I think now might be the time for something radical.
Neil A
Theoretically, the Lib-Dems have that as policy. In practice they are not willing to put it to the vote in a Scottish referendum.
The polls have regularly suggested that they would win the support of a majority in Scotland. Too radical for the LDs.
It seems to me it would be a good basis for everyone, even pro-independence nationalists. The constituent countries could have the legal power to secede, subject to a further referendum.
Always agreed with a federal UK – good enough for Australia, South Africa, USA, Germany, France and many others…. But can you imagine the historic theme park which is the UK positively embracing radical constitutional change?
I can’t.. Polls regularly show an ‘all change is bad’ philosophy, most noticeable with the ones allowing for Roman Catholics to marry into the royal family and the other potentially allowing for women to directly become queens of the UK (rather than last chance like with qe2).
Seriously I would positively vote for any party which argued for a consistent democratic constitutional state–elected Upper House and a federal system being part of it.
But we shall remain with our poor part democracy and still continue to reject change because the world owes us a living as we once had an empire…
Does anyone know if there is any kind of non-party / all-party campaign group anywhere working towards a Federal UK?
A
Anthony, any idea what time Populus will be appearing?
The biggest problem for a federal UK is that it would comprise roughly;
England; 54% of the area and 85% of the population.
N Ireland; 6% of the area and 3% of the population.
Scotland; 32% of the area and 8% of the population.
Wales; 9% of the area and 6% of the population.
There are regions within England that are larger and more populated that to of the other three countries. The whole thing would be hugely imbalanced. In a 600 seat senate England would have over 500 seats.
Peter.
Peter,
All of that is only a problem if you don’t believe in the UK. It all applies to the pre-devolution situation just as much as a federal system.
I am pretty sure there are other countries with huge disparities between their constituent states. From Russia to the USA to India its much the same. The only slightly unusual thing would be having only one “large” member state rather than several, but I don’t see why that should be a problem.
After all, its not as if the federal senate would be split on national lines; it would be controlled on party political lines that could/would continue to be (mostly) UK wide. I imagine there’d be quite a lot of split voting. SNP at home, Labour/Tory UK-wide etc.
Populus:
C40/L30/LD18
is now on the Times website.
Neil,
I am not aware of another federal state that has seventeen out of twenty people in one part.
The two closest might be Canada and Australia but even there the most densely populated states with the largest populations still only make up a third of the population of each.
I have a feeling that what would stop federalism working would be the elephant in the room, the one country much bigger than the other three put together.
Peter.
In Australia it works well as the 2 houses of Parliaments-but with powers like the UK- are elected on different voting methods.
The lower house has electorates based on population (more or less- some awareness of size of electorate is factored in, this is also allowed for in expenses; look at Western Australia, one electorate there covers all the state bar for Perth. That’s about the size of old Europe. In fact, why aren’t UK expenses based on electorate–allow the MP for the Orkneys and the western Isles a lot more than any MP who can drive home at night?).
The Upper House has equal politicians for each state (territories have token politicians).
When those who freak at the idea of two elected Houses should just realise that nothing at Westminster need change it’s just that we, the electorate, can actually vote on all those who make our laws. That’d be a nice change.
To respond to Peter Cairns, much as I approve of Scottish Nationalism, the disparity of the population in Australia between NSW / Victoria and Tasmania is probably worse than England against Scotland. Federalism worked for Australia .
I think it would not work here because the countries are not one; just look at 6 nations rugby. Just consider the different histories-Scotland was independent for much longer than it has been part of the partial Union. All of Australia (excluding the issue of the aborigines-which adds a markedly different issue) was just British colonies with a different name…
I’m not sure what difference one country being much bigger would make, other than the “big brother resentment” that small countries often feel of their neighbours. On a practical level I don’t see what effect it would have.
This Populus poll is somewhat contradictory to the others taken at the same time, and others just shortly before.
I think we will indeed have to wait at least a few weeks before a conclusive picture is presented by the polls.
Peter
I can think of at least three federal countries where the largest state exceeds one third of the population.
Buenos Aires Province is 40% of the population of Argentina & Punjab is 45% of the population of Pakistan
Not forgetting, of course, the Kingdom of Belgium, where Flanders is 59% of the population
So although your “elephant” does not turn out to be mouse-sized, it is nowhere as large as you make it out. One of the existing members of the European Union you so admire already has a member state where one country is much bigger than the rest put together!
Why did you ignore Belgium? Trying to ignore examples that contradict the SNP’s “arguments” for independence?
Cynosarges
On a polling site statistics need to be appropriate. Yours aren’t in a UK context. How many federal countries can you identify where one of the four units has 84% of the population?
In the countries that you identify, how many have a system whereby an election for the domestic policies of the dominant nation simultaneously acts as the election for he macro-economic, foreign and defence policies for all the component nations within the state?
Neil,
The disparity identified by Peter is the principal reason why a federal UK would be unstable, and hence this solution, while sound in theory, would not be attractive in practice.
Pace all the others dragging up examples from overseas, but none of the other major countries which operate federal structures have anything remotely approaching this imbalance. Moreover, in many of the examples cited, the federal “Satates” are no more than regional authorities within a single nation and not separate nationalities. This matters – ask the Quebecois.
Cynosarges,
Belgium has just three constituent parts: Flanders, Wallonia; and the city of Brussels. Yes Flanders is now about 50% larger than Wallonia in population and GDP, but actually that was not the case when the structure was first established, at which time they were fairly equal. The growing disparity between Flanders and Wallonia is what has driven the rise of the Vlamsblok and created tensions which recently left Belgium without a government for several months. That should prove a warning, not an example to follow.
“JAMES LUDLOW
@ Promsan – “Wait, sorry, so first you’re rubbishing my statement; then you slide in a rider; then another; then another… slick.”
A bit touchy, aren’t you.”
Not really – just expressive!
“The overall picture has been rather more consistent than your overview suggests. Fluctuations have largely been been between fairly narrow parameters, with a very few periods of higher volatility (the never-quite-high-enough Brown bounces, the expenses scandal). But for the most part the picture is one of Tories in the low forties and Labour in the mid to high twenties.
Perhaps we have different understandings of “volatility”. I’d consider the polls “volatile” if one week the Tories were ahead and the next Labour and so on over longer than a “blip” period, and we’re nowhere near that. It’s not even happened once for, what, nearly two years.”"
I’ve already stated that yes, the Tories have in broad terms been on a plateau of about 40% for a couple of years; but, 2009 has been clearly more volatile: even though they are fluctuating around the same figure, the ‘amplitude’ & ‘frequency’ is much greater. They are not “narrow” parameters at all – they *were* narrow parameters in 2008; but not in 2009.
I think there might be more rogue polls about as well.
Sure, I don’t mean volatile in terms of one party’s position relative to another; rather, relative to their own historical movements.
I’ll bet you a Ruritanian Dinar that the Other’s are up again to “silly numbers” before the end of the year.
“DAVE CAMPBELL
On this level of support, the Lib Dems will lose half of their MP’s as well as Nick Clegg.”
That’s funny… and also quite plausible!
@oldnat
In Argentina, Buenos Aires (which also includes the federal capital – another 5%) controls the politics of the county. Similarly Punjab (in particular, the ‘land barons’ who ‘own’ the electorate) haS long controlled the political agenda. Questions answered?
@paul h-J
Having lived and worked in Belgium, I can tell you that you have made some major errors.
(1) Flanders has always had a larger population than Wallonia. The federation was created in the 1970s. For the Flemish population to increase from equality (as you assert) to 50% larger than the Walloon population in less than 40 years requires a birth rate that is frankly unbelievable. Where have you obtained the evidence for your assertion from?
(2) The tension between the two populations is not caused by a poulation disparity. It is caused by an *income* disparity. Wallonia is a coal & steel economy, and as the regional economy declined, has fallen into a dependency culture, demanding ever-increasing subsidies from the richer Flanders. As the demands for subsidies increase, the tensions increase. A lesson for the UK, true, but nothing to do with federal systems. The lesson is that whether Wallon or Scot, if you keep picking your neighbour’s pocket, he may finally resent your hand on his wallet.
Cynosarges,
When Belgium was first created (1830) from two very different Hapsburg provinces, the population distribution was not that unequal. However, Wallonia dominated the country, both politically and economically, and this continued until the post-war period when the disparity between Flanders and Wallonia could no longer be ignored.
The federal solution was an attempt to address these tensions, and so keep this somewhat artificial country together. You will no doubt be aware of the claim that the only true Belgian was/is the King himself. I don’t know what the population figures were in 1970, but, as you note, it is not just the number of people that has diverged, but, and far more importantly, GDP per capita.
However, the ongoing tensions arising from the growing disparity between a thriving Flanders and a declining Wallonia have not been resolved by the federal structure. So, it is valid to argue that the Belgian example is a warning to the UK that Federalism is not a panacea. In any case, the key point was that Belgium does not disprove the point made by Peter Cairns that a Federal structure where 85% is in one unit are the remainder distributed among three others is inherently unstable.
Fianlly, I agree entirely that if your neighbour (or even your brother) keeps picking your pocket, you are likely to get fed up.
(PS – population growth is driven more by migration than birth rates, and many Wallonians have moved north/west in search of work, just as many Scots, Welsh or northerners have moved to SE England.)
@paul h-j
Thank you for accepting my points about the economic basis for the tensions in Belgium. However, your assertion that the regions started with the populations were “fairly equal” remains unsupported.
Yes, I know that my rather cynical exaggeration claiming that all the difference was caused by a higher birth rate was ridiculous (and was meant to be so). However, you appear unaware of the linguistic politics of the country. Walloons (as a group) only pay lip-service to learing Dutch (the reverse is not true). Because of historical tensions over language, except in officially bilingual Brussels, a French speaker gets fairly short shrift in Flanders, or a Flemish speaker in Wallonia. What migration there is primarily consists of professional class Walloons getting jobs in Brussels, but choosing to live in one of the ring of communes surrounding Brussels. Altough this migration looms large (for political reasons) in these communes, it hadn’t (in 1996, when I last worked there) changed the balance in any of the communes. Migration depends on the rate immigrants can be absorbed, and to suggest millions have migrated in 40 years is, simly, ludicrous.
Finally, if you are agreeing with Peter Cairns on Federal structures, are you suggesting that eventually the Basque country and Catelonia are on an irreversable path to independence. Surely they are reasonable analogues for Wales & Scoutland within the United Kingdom?
Cynosarges,
If I may clarify. I referred to the “fairly equal” distribution when Belgium was first created. I don’t have access to 1830 population statistics as between Flanders and Wallonia, but given that this pre-dated industrialisation, the best proxy for looking at a region’s relative population is the number of historic market towns. Liege, Namur, Charleroi and Mons were every bit as important as Antwerp, Ghent and Bruges. This is what enabled francophone Wallonia to dominate Belgium until the post war period when
the disparity in GDP became too lop-sided to support Walloon preference. The disparity in population today was driven by industrialisation and depletion of rural population – a phenomenon seen across Europe, but more evident in Belgium since Flanders was more industrial, and Wallonia more agrarian. I never suggested that millions had moved in just the past few decades.
As to the linguistic bigotry you mention, this has got much worse in recent decades. Back in the 70s, as a francophone, I was at no disadvantage when visiting Ostende or Courtrai., yet when I returned on business a few years ago I had to grapple with Flemish signs in Kortrijk and locals who preferred to answer me in English. In terms of Flemish willingness to learn French, I think you will find that they were given little choice as this was compulsory in all Belgian schools. These days, it is a badge of Flemish pride to refuse to speak French, and they prefer English.
On your last point, I was merely agreeing with Peter that a federal UK would be unstable, and not commenting on independance. I don’t accept the inevitability of anything. The Spanish example you cite is also flawed since Spain has an existing regional structure and regional identities, hence a federal structure works. It would only work in the UK if we had several English regions (as the EU and Mr Prescott have sought to foist on England) with equal status in the federal UK as Scotland , Wales and Ulster.
However, that leads to two separate problems:
- how do make laws that apply in some, but not all, regions ?
- how do you tell the English that England no longer exists, and they are henceforth East Midlanders, or South-Westerners, or whatever ?
The risk with a Federal UK is not that it puts Scotland or Wales on an inevitable path to separation, but that it feeds a form of militant English nationalism that is destructive of the entire United Kingdom.
I think there is an underlying supposition here that doesn’t really fit with reality. In a hypothetical “Senate of the United Kingdom” elected from all four of her constituent nations, the ruling government would be formed from a party or parties that had some measure of support in all four of those nations. We are not talking about 500 senators from the “English National Party”, 60 from the Scottish National Party, 20 from the Party of Wales and 10 from the All Ulster Party (imagine!). If for argument’s sake the Senate had a Labour majority it would include senators from the three mainland countries (and probably one or two SDLP from NI). There would still be some divisive issues, such as grant allocation policy for federally raised funds, and the location of military facilities etc, but given that the Senate’s remit would only be UK wide issues, I would imagine that “inter-National” disputes would be fairly limited. The fault lines would on the whole be party political rather than national. Obviously in the individual parliaments of the nations, national issues would dominate. But they would be masters of their own destiny, as they wish to be.
@paul h-j
When you say “Liege, Namur, Charleroi and Mons were every bit as important as Antwerp, Ghent and Bruges. This is what enabled francophone Wallonia to dominate Belgium until the post war period when the disparity in GDP became too lop-sided to support Walloon preference.” you are completely wrong. The reason why Wallonia dominated Belgium was that the coal & steel was located in the Walloon provinces. This resulted in industrialisation. Flemish industry, historically, was processing English wool. When Elizabeth decided to import those skills to England, she set in train a long-term decline in the great weaving cities (which is why there are so many historic buildings preserved in Bruges & Ghent)
When you write “since Flanders was more industrial, and Wallonia more agrarian. I never suggested that millions had moved in just the past few decades.” you are totally confused. Liege started to industrialise with the early development of it’s coal mines, back in the Elizabethan age. As Flanders lost it’s weaving industry, Wallonia industrialised. It wasn’t until the post-WW2 development of industry around Antwerp (caused because the port was repaired to support the allied armies in WW2) that Flanders re-industrialised. Most Flemish industry is less than 60 years old.
When you write “These days, it is a badge of Flemish pride to refuse to speak French, and they prefer English.” You are partially wrong. Most Flemish refuse to speak French TO A WALLOON IN FLANDERS. They have no problems in speaking French to a foreigner, or to a Walloon, if they are in Wallonia.
Linguistic problems have, indeed, got worse in recent years. Nominally, both communities have to learn the other’s language. However (as I observed during three years work in Belgium), even in officially-bilingual Brussels, you find few Belgians whose native language is French who are capable of speaking simple sentences in Dutch. Most Flemish, however are capable of carrying out complex conversations in French. The Walloon refusal to keep ‘their part of the bargain’ combined with the historical sense of injustice from the preceeding century has been exploited by the Vlaams Blok, and it is now ‘common practise’ in Flanders to refuse to speak French to any Walloon visiting Flanders.
I also disagree with your assessment about Spain. Spain has given the parts of the country that have distinct cultures more autonomy. Although there are regional governments in other parts of the country they have much lesser powers, so I do not see that Prescott’s regions have any validity. Labour proposed one such region, and it turned out that the voters did not see sufficient ‘regional identity’ to justify the extra assembly of politicians.
I disagree with you about the risks of federalism. I believe that the lopsided system that Labour have created, where Scottish representatives can, effectively, tax Englishmen, to Scotland’s benefit (as, for example in their votes on student funding), while English representatives have no say on Scottish spending (except for writing a blank cheque) is far more likely to cause disintegration. A federal system, where each constituent part of the UK taxes, and spends on local issues, and a far more limited UK parliament would defuse the situation, in my opinion.