There's been much speculation in the UK press recently about the possibility of the UK's Conservative party losing their position of the official opposition, to be replaced by the Liberal Democrats (the most quoted timeframe is by the election after next).

The speculation suggests that this is because the LibDems are increasing their share of the vote (by whittling away the left wing of the Tory vote as well as some of Labour's), while the UKIP are eating away the right wing of the Tories.

I guess there are a number of questions that this raises:

Is it going to happen or is it just silly season in the news?
Is it a good thing?
What would UK politics be like with Labour and the LibDems as the main political parties?


I have to admit that my initial reaction is that I'd love this to happen - most of this comes from a deep hatred of the Tories built during the Thatcher years as, in my opinion, she tore the social fabric of this country apart. Being reduced to third party status would destroy the Tories forever - something like that never even happened to the Labour during their 'unelectable' period in the 80s.

But on further reflection I'm not sure it would be good. I'm worried about the effects of such a huge change on what we currently have - a very stable political system of many decades which by its nature seems to exclude the extremist elements from all sides of the political spectrum.

The perceived demise of the Tory party would send even more of its voters fleeing (like rats from a sinking ship is the phrase that springs to my mind ), but it's where they would flee that worries me. The more right-wing of them would probably head for UKIP (as they are at the moment) with the extremists abandoning their pretence of gentility and heading for the ultra-far-right BNP. The more centrist elements (the left wing of the Tory party) would probably go for the LibDems.

Now, with a rapidly growing voter base, it would be reasonably certain that at some point the LibDems would take power and introduce Proportional Representation as the electoral system. I've never been against PR (in fact, it always seemed like a good idea), but the prospect of it in this (hypothetical) altered political environment is worrying - with both the far-right growing (as theorised above) and the far-left theoretically gaining significant ground, with PR giving disgruntled left-wing Labour voters now even more reason to vote for one of the dogmatic socialist alternatives.

The ultimate result would be UK politics losing it's centrist stability (a stability which has remained regardless of whether Labour or the Tories have been in power) and becoming an area of growing extremism on both left and right.

So is this going to happen or is my theory wrong?

This is one of the things I like about the way politics works in Europe. Small parties can survive and thrive in their own little niche, and can weild some influence by forming coalitions with bigger parties. I wish something like this could happen in America.

It's certainly true that the smaller parties can survive and thrive - even more so in mainland Europe where Proportional Representation is the electoral system.

However, I do have worries about it.

I know you're a right-wing kind of guy, so let me use this example:

In the 2001 UK elections:

Scottish Socialist party won 0.3% of the vote
Socialist Alliance party won 0.2%
Socialist Labour party won 0.2%

(the far-right BNP won 0.2% if you're interested for comparison)

(these figures from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_UK_general_election)

So using these figures the 3 hard-left socialist parties won a total of 0.7% of the vote - in a pure system of Proportional Representation they'd therefore have 0.7% of the 641 MPs, which makes about 4 MPs.

However, it's generally agreed that under a PR system, people are less likely to vote for one of the main parties, because under PR your vote isn't "wasted" if you vote for one of them - i.e. your vote will still help determine the balance of power. So we can assume that the number of hard-left dogmatic socialist MPs affecting policy would be more than 4 - let's say 8 for the sake of argument (that's only equal to a tiny 1.2% of the national vote - not an unimaginable rise under the circumstances, especially with many left-wing Labour voters now voting for parties to the left of Labour since the Iraq war).

How would you feel about 8 hard-left socialist MPs being the possible balance of power in a government setting laws for you? (8 MPs has been that balance of power before in the UK - the Maastricht treaty bill was ratified by 8 votes, if I remember correctly).

My worries are that these extremist parties (left and right wing) will increasingly dominate (and influence) UK politics, and the UK political landscape will become more extremist.

They can only have great influence if the people in the major parties are unskilled at negotiation.

Are MPs somehow compelled by law to always vote with their party? For example, if Major Party A wants to get something done, but doesn't want to cave in to a small extremist party, would they be able to effectively buy the votes of a few members of Major Party B to get it done? This happens in the American congress all the time. Republicans will approve some gov't spending in a Democrat's district to get his vote on something else that he may be personally opposed to. Or the other way around, both sides do it.

Refresh my memory. Was the Maastricht treaty the one that brought Britan into the EU?

If so, we had something similar happen with the NAFTA and WTO treaties.

Political parties can use something called a three line whip, which orders their MPs to vote in a particular way. An MP can disobey this, in which case they "lose the whip" (the support of the party).

You're right though - PR would bring about a more negotiating style rather than the current oppositional style of government.

Britain was already in the EU (EEC), but John Major's Conservative government ratified the Maastricht Treaty which "moved significantly towards economic, political and social union and set out the detailed timetable for economic and monetary union (EMU). It also set out the convergence criteria for economies who wanted to join in EMU."

In the American congress, if the transgression is serious enough, the party cuts monetary assistance for the member's re-election campaign. Sounds similar. Isn't it great how graft and corruption is built into the system?

We have a strange mix of opposition and negotiation. It breaks down over issues. The democratic party is generally for gun control, but there are some districts, with strong unions, where the people will vote for a democrat on economics, but that democrat had better be pro-gun. So that representative will go against the party when that issue comes up. There are examples of this with both parties, and many issues. There are a lot of pro-abortion republicans, even though the party is against it. If those republicans don't support abortion, they won't be re-elected in their district.

Sounds very similar to NAFTA.

What do you think about Turkey joining the EU?

Corrupt indeed. For a completely boring point of background info on the British parliament, the reason the people from each party who keep their MPs in line are called "whips" (and hence "3 line whip", and "losing the whip") is because it's a term from fox-hunting. A whip is one of 2 assistants to the huntsman who ride either side of the pack and keep the hounds all running in the right direction. That's probably boring, but some of you might be interested.

There's something similar in the UK, but not as strong. A constituency (district) will really have to have their MP by the balls to make them vote against their party (i.e. a very small majority liable to be lost unless he/she does what the voters say).

On the other hand, there are MPs who regularly vote against their party on certain issues (mainly Labour MPs, it seems to me) with the backing of their constituency - but Labour MPs have always been more rebellious and anti-authoritarian than Tory MPs (a huge generalisation, but good as a guideline).

I'm undecided about Turkey.

Firstly, Turkey isn't in Europe, it's in Asia, so I can't see why it should join the European Union. The EU is a geographically based alliance, defined by the continent. But I'm not against change per se, so this isn't a big obstacle.

Secondly, Turkey has big problems with human rights, so this should bar it from joining the EU. There is an argument that says that membership of the EU would force Turkey to become better on human rights, and I can understand that argument, but what I'd like to see is Turkey changing it's current policy on human rights abuses BEFORE it is even considered for EU membership. Applicants wishing to join the EU should already be acting like responsible nations, not promising to fit in at some point in the future.

Thirdly - and this is somewhat irrational, but I'm being truthful - everyone knows that the only reason Turkey are even being considered is because Bush has been campaigning for it - and it gets my back up when a US president tries to dictate the membership of the EU (imagine how you'd feel about European leaders trying to make an ammendment to the US constitution).

There's a rational side to this as well - the US (by that, I mean the US government) is wary of the EU - because the EU (collectively) is now a larger economic base than the US. The recent decisions to form a EU peace-keeping force worries the US even more - the EU could quickly become militarily equal (not necessarily opposed to) to the US. The big fish in the pond is no longer the only big fish.

Basically (from my POV) it all comes down to a challenge to the US position as the only global superpower. Russia can no longer challenge the US (economically, militarily or whatever), but the EU is getting close. And the EU with Russia as a member, which is something which is in ongoing discussion, would eclipse the US as a (collective) global superpower.

It is no wonder that the anti-EU UK Independence Party's (UKIP) campaign is managed by an American, and receives a large amount of funding from US sources.

To move back to the question, the inclusion in the EU of Turkey (a country with a government which slavishly does just about whatever the US tells it to) would give the US more leverage/control over the EU, and I don't think that's a good thing.

Having Turkey in the EU would also put a spanner in the works of any further political integration of the EU, which is why Bush, and the more Eurosceptic countries such as the UK and the accession countries, are pro-Turkish membership and why all the Euro-nuts in Belgium are horrified by the idea. Personally I'm against it, because of Turkey's human rights record and because of its relatively corrupt and backward economy. Human rights reform would have to come before membership, or else what is the incentive? We need to keep the standards as high as possible imo.


back to the main question - think that conservatism is deeply ingrained into British culture, so from the polls it seems unlikely that the total Conservative + UKIP vote would fall below about 30%. Even when the Tories were at their most reviled they didn't fall below that. So I would argue that only if UKIP split the vote will the Tories fall below the Lib Dems. The last poll I saw put them only 2 points ahead, but I suspect that when the crunch comes we will see people who now say that they would vote UKIP going back to the Tories for practical reasons.

I would guess that only if UKIP survives will we see the Tories struggle, but I suspect that UKIP may be a flash in the pan. It has all the hallmarks of a populist release of anger - passion and energy combined with a lack of depth and fatal unprofessionalism.

I also suspect that the decline of the Conservatives isn't quite what British politics needs right now. There seems to be some kind of political realignment going on, though its nature isn't clear. What is clear is that neither Labour nor the Lib Dems could represent that large conservative core which still exists. At the moment only the Conservatives can represent the conservatives. British politics, as elsewhere, has long been drawn up as left v right, but, as a guy of 23, I know of very few (none?) of my friends, interested in politics though they may be, who would call themselves socialists or conservatives, or if they did they wouldn't necessarily mean it in the traditional economic sense. I think people are so focused on government integrity that it overrides anything else.

I am just totally rambling now. I'll stop.

I love the rambling. I'm learning a lot.

I happen to agree that Bush should keep his nose out of the Turkey thing. That would be like France telling us we should let Mexico become a state. If they wanted to. The analogy is accurate. Turkey is Europe's Mexico.

I'd be pretty happy with the Tories becoming the third party considering I'm a paid up member of the Lib Dems.

You have to pay in England?

It isn't like registering. It's like joining a club. You have to pay a membership fee.

Interesting.

What are the benefits of being a paid member?

Each party has its own constitution, so it's different for each one. The main point is that you have a vote on the party leader, MPs etc. It's also a common way to donate money, I guess.


The Labour website says that members can:

* vote for your local and parliamentary candidates and the party leader
* help develop the next general election manifesto through local policy forums
* take up the opportunity to serve as a school governor, magistrate or councillor
* take part in social events and fundraising activities to help support local and national campaigns
* get involved in campaigning work to help Labour win local and national elections


For the Conservatives you get:

Voting Rights
* One member, one vote in the election of the Leader of the Party
* A vote in the selection of candidates for parliamentary, local government and European elections
* A vote in the election of constituency association officers
* Representation on the governing Board of the Party
* Direct influence in the development of policy
* The opportunity to meet influential, like minded people
* The chance to attend Party Conference
* Access to an Ethics and Integrity Committee to ensure high standards
* A range of benefits including the Conservative Heartland magazine


The Lib Dem site doesn't seem to have a similar list.


N.B. The vote for Tory party leader comes after the Conservative MPs have narrowed the field down to 2 candidates, so the members don't have total freedom. I suspect that the MPs are regretting granting the members even that right, which they got quite recently. In 2001 William Hague resigned as leader and a load of backbench MPs (i.e. no position in the shadow cabinet) got a guy called Ian Duncan Smith put forward as one of the two candidates for the membership to vote on. IDS had no experience of government, and absolutely no talent, and was chosen solely on the basis that he was 'one of them,' i.e. a snooty little Englander with petty conservative views. The members duly elected him leader, being themselves little Englanders. Last year he was deposed by his MPs when it became quite evident that he was unelectable, and they then tacitly agreed to only put forward one candidate, Michael Howard, specifically in order to deny the party membership their vote and prevent them choosing another useless, charmless, not-very-bright liability who couldn't win an election in a field of one. So what value the voting rights of a Tory party member? Anyway...



By the way, I think that the chances of party members having any direct influence at all over policy in any main party, through 'local policy forums' or otherwise, is approximately zero.

We do those things with Primary Elections. When you vote for a candidate in the primary, you're actually voting for a local party member who will go to the national convention and support that candidate as a delegate. Delegates also write the party platforms.

The one thing I like about the US system is that that the central party is weaker & individual candidates have more of a voice.