Well I suppose we have seen it all before - a governing party's support melting down at a by election, usually during hard economic times. And so it was in Barnsley. Question - was the humiliation suffered by the LIb Dems of a differnt quality to historic government defeats ? I think there is a case for saying it was and that it will be of long term significance for the third party. There are two reasons for saying this.
First, it is the third party, not one of the two main parties. Liberals and Lib Dems have done poorly in the past, especially when 'squeezed out' by a clear two party contest. But in the recent past Barnsley has been a Labour-Lib Dem contest (an uneven one to be sure, but still a two party contest) with the Conservatives squeezed out. Yet normally third parties are treated sympatheticaly by the electorate at by lecetions. Not so in Barnsley. Second it is hard to see how the Liberal Democrats can recover. If the economy improves, it will be the Conservatives who will reap the benefit. If the Lib Dems were to wring a major concession from their Conservative masters, perhaps they would gain the public's admiration, but what could such a issue be ? There are no more constitutional reforms to be fought for, no reforms of the banking system or realignment of the tax burden. The Lib Dems loook to be at the wrong end of a cul de sac. Of course if there is a no vote on AV in May, matters will go from bad to worse. Without voting reform, we could legitimately ask, 'what was it all for'. A pact with the devil where the devil conceded virtually nothing ?
One factor remains in their favour - the Conservatives cannot afford a general election before the economy shows real signs of recovery, giving rom for some tax cutting and/or reflationary policies. A doomed Liberal Democrat Party might decide that, if they are to sink, they might as well take the whole crew down with them. Conservatives will be aware of this and may, just may, decide to throw some bones in the direction of their pet to try to stop them despairing too quickly.
But, yes, this looks like the beginning of the end for the Lib Dems, or is it the end of the beginning of the restoration of two party politics in England ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Neil, do you understand how AV works? I am still struggling with it. I asked the question on CiF as follows:
Why do the second choices of the least favourite candidate get redistributed? Surely it makes more sense for the second choices of the second most favourite candidate? Surely with the former, a pile of minority votes for loony small parties will pile up against the majority? So you could get a right wing MP getting more votes than a left wing candidate with the most initial (first choice) votes? (Or vice versa) How is this fair on constituencies?
Am I misunderstanding something? I still cannot envision how it will work in practice.
Helen
Helen,
You are right about how it works and it isn't logical. The only thing to say is that the second preferences of small 'loony parties' actually don't make a difference. This is evidence from Australia. Unless the vote is on a knife edge, it is really the second preferences of third party voters that tend to sway the election. I suppose the logic is that votes for smaller parties are definitely wasted, so the voter at least does have a say in the final outcome. If you took the second preferences of the third placed candidate first then these voters for small parties are disenfranchised. May not be clear but it's the best I can do !
Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment