Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In 1974 British politics moved from a 2-party system to a 3
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In 1974 British politics moved from a 2-party system to a 3-party one: GE2015 might hearld the start of 4-party politics
Just look at the chart above showing the aggregate CON+LAB vote in all general elections since 1950. GE 2015 saw the big two share down to its lowest level. Now with the emergence of UKIP it could edge down even more.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The Conservative Party used to be a mix of the urban rich and the countryside; a mix of the small business person, and the middle class professional. As urban professionals have become more 'radical' (in terms of belief in gay marriage, opposition to capital punishment, etc.) they have alienated the conservative country folk. The Labour Party has lost a great many of its working class supporters to UKIP too.
The Labour Party is equally torn: the unions and the do gooders have historically had an alliance. The rise of the liberal party - which was, in the West country at least, the lone voice against Conservatism. With the coalition in government, many new liberals have returned to the Labour Party. But, this may also be a temporary effect - five years of Ed Milliband may send some of them running back to Tim Farron led Liberal Democrats.
It would seem logical for the LibDems to split in two: and for the right wing (Danny Alexander, Nick Clegg, David Laws, etc.) to merge with the Conservatives, and the left to become a sister party to Labour. But, I think the fragmenting of the old coalitions of Labour and Tory is a long, long story. One that will inevitably lead to some for PR in the long-run.
@ Quincel 7:20pm - Are UKIP a credible 4th party at a GE. I don't think there is evidence (yet)
50 and 51 would've been low 80%. After that it goes to mid-70s, then it bounces around between about 73-78% all the way through, is high 70s in '92, drops off to about 71% in 1997, falls off a cliff into the 50s in 2001, recovers a bit in 2005, and up to mid 60s in 2010.
The 70-80% turnout range is one that's held up pretty solidly a long way back in UK elections, sometimes goes out for 2-3 elections but historically has then reverted back to that range.
It's a cliché to bemoan a declining turnout. However - am I the only politico to have had the thought - I want certain people to be voting Less??
The Liberals more than doubled their vote, but SNP gained seven seats and PC one also, while the Ulster Unionists declined the Conservative whip.
In many ways it was a rejection of both major parties, but with no clear winner. The Liberals lost share in 79 and it was 35 years before they had a seat in government. Kippers take note, you will need a lot of patience.
I've been pondering making the argument that the 'natural' state of two party was down to an illusion because people lacked other candidates standing.
Although the relation between candidates standing and strength of support is a kind of chicken and egg kind of thing.
Anyway-
Am I the only politico to have had the thought - I want certain people to be voting Less??
Obviously not, otherwise we would have compulsory voting.
What were the new areas contested though?
Dunno.......But I would assume the Prime minister and some of the cabinet could beat it.
Does that suggest that if the party cannot "excite" their core vote they will not turn out and that the party will lose or at least struggle at the election. I'm not sure it explains 92 but it may explain from 97 through to 2010.
Are we seeing presidential politics and does that point to the dangers for the Tories (Farage vs Cameron) and Labour (Miliband). Does it also explain the IndyRef progress of the YES campaign where (and I am a long way away admittedly) the only leader making headlines is Salmond.
My thoughts are, yes it does but I am willing to be talked around.
The low 80%s in the 1950, 51 election were very much the aberration. If you look for all the twentieth century you (mostly, since I'm going from memory) see a pretty consistent range of that 70-80%.
The clever part is saying whether turnout is going to stabilise at a lower level, or if it's going to continue to climb back into that range with 2001-2010 being low aberrations as 50 and 51 were high aberrations.
I'm not sure I agree, long-term.
We could see a period of 4 party politics, but it's also possible that UKIP will just devour the Lib Dems. The Liberals didn't co-exist with Labour, they were usurped by them. The two-party system was retained it was just the identity of one party which changed, from yellow to red.
It's possible UKIP will grow quickly and die young, but it's also the Lib Dems are entering terminal decline. We'll find out when Clegg's gone.
To be honest - my view is based on the stats more than anything. (having been canvassing)
I've noticed that on American websites, the moment someone goes very slightly off-topic they get moderated or otherwise told off.
I prefer the British attitude.
As the ENP increases under FPTP so does disproportionality. The Catalan political scientist Josep Colomer theorizes that ENP of 4 usually breaks FPTP, and it is abandoned for PR. Only India currently retains FPTP with ENP > 4.0 .
UK 2010 was the most disproportional election result in the developed world. Only Bhutan, Botswana and Belize have more disproportional legislatures in the entire world...
Yes - but from 0208 to heathrow - not exactly outside the bubble is it.
Easter greetings to all and sundry.
On-topic, I would contend that we still have a two-party duopoly - in 2010, the Conservative and Labour parties won 560 out of 650 seats and excluding Ulster, their dominance is even greater. In essence, any Government can only be led by either the leader of the Conservative Party or the leader of the Labour party.
FPTP keeps these two disparate Coalitions together and replicates the dominance found in other countries by blocs of parties.
Opportunities for this to change have been very few - it might have happened with the coming of the SDP in 1981 but the Falklands War saved Labour (as I have argued on here many times before) as much as it emphasised Conservative dominance.
It MIGHT have happened had IDS remained Conservative leader through to the 2005 election.
Will UKIP or Europe led to schism in one or both of the main parties ? It's a possibility albeit a remote one in my view. Recent elections have shown both the Conservative and Labour parties having a "core" of around 30% each (give or take) - it would require the significant third party to be polling at or above 25% and for that vote to be concentrated where the other two were weakest for said third party to make a significant (100+) breakthrough.
For example, even if the LDs had polled 32%, the Conservatives 30% and Labour 28% in 2010, the LDs would likely have finished third in terms of seats.
In principle I can see how a new NOTA party could make an inroad into British politics because the most recent NOTA party is now of course in government.
That said, the paucity of actual policies, save no to EU, no to immigrants means that the longevity of UKIP must be called into question. At present they look more like a pressure group than political party (of course pressure groups get a lot of support) but I suppose it is up to Nige to determine whether they progress further than that.
Too serious?
Just watched the "season finale" of Southland, which has now been discontinued.
Magnificent.
Yeeeahhh - still the greatest democracy in the world though. I'm not emigrating. A Yes vote will S--- scare me though.
It's this type of statement that makes the WWC hate us.
Limited advances in Labour areas (Birmingham Ladywood) were emphasised by the Iraq War but haven't proven anywhere as durable. In other areas, all the Liberals and Lib Dems did was replace the Conservatives as a distant alternative (Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle) and even that has been eroded since 2010.
UKIP too has emerged more strongly in Conservative areas (not exclusively). The SDP offered a fleeting threat to Labour but it's yet to be proved that UKIP are a consistent and coherent threat to Labour constituencies.
The Conservatives have been all but wiped out in many cities and Scotland (in House of Commons seats) but have made progress as the suburbs have expanded beyond the centre of towns.
We therefore have a suburban/rural party going up against an urban party in many respects.
What is I think permanent (or as permanent as these things ever are) is the rise of the Nat vote shares. Assuming a No in the IndyRef, I don't expect that to change; in fact, if anything, I'd expect a boost for the SNP in GE 2015, as a consolation prize. If it's a Yes, then of course we are more back to two-party politics (in vote-share terms) than we have been for a long time.
Drop through Kensington to Cromwell Road, along Talgarth road to the M4, turn left on the M25 and off the spur to T5.
Arrive at 5.35, through the South Security fast track (the far right scanner behind the new area that everyone has forgotten about).
Through security by 5.40 and into the lounge by 5.43 assuming there are no tourists to get in the way.
On a plane by 6.30 or so most mornings, typically aiming to arrive for a 10am CET call and an 11am CET meeting
There's your headline!
Problem is Scottish threads are boring and there's not much else going on at the moment
Interestingly, as the Tory vote becomes more spatially polarized, inequality in income, health and life expectancy has increased dramatically.
It is no exaggeration to say that we are socially and politically back in the 1920s...
She can't actually see the screen - so, to be blunt - My Gf is a Greenie. We are quite drunk. Please forgive us. (It is good Friday and we're listening to the Red Album [Beatles, see yesterday])
But as pointed out earlier, FPTP isn't built for 3 let alone 4 parties. And the wheels usually fall off at around the number 4...
So, while Lab+Con might win 94% of the seats, seemingly a "2 party system", that might only be achieved at the price of translating voting rank order of Con, Lab, UKIP, LD into seat rank order of Lab, Con, LD, UKIP(0).
Indices of disproportionality of such a result would probably lead to this country being moved out of the "democratic" column by international observers...
http://youtu.be/e3L-aBgNL1w
It was only later that the Liberals were seen as a left wing party, and I think the National Liberal influence on the Conservatives was a positive one.
Some electoral pacts (tacit or otherwise) could have a significant impact at the next election, perhaps more likely to be negotiated by the Webb/Alexander/Browne/Laws of this world rather than the Cables and Farrons .
Of course there would have to be quid pro quos, presumably for the centrist wing of the Conservatives, perhaps for people like Soubry. Standing, but not actively campaigning is how I see it working. There are enough personal contacts in the coalition for it to work.
In the 1950s the Liberals were reduced to just 2 seats in England, and both were dependent on pacts with local Conservatives. [Bolton and Huddersfield].
How ironic that we ditched AV right at the time it might have been tailor made for the way things stand. Having said that, I think the Lib/UKIP vote will be less than the Lib Dem vote of 2010, and the Tory/Lab vote to be higher.
Four party politics of course already exists in 3 of the 4 nations making up the UK.
At which a much older member roused himself to ask if I REALLY meant National Liberal policies!
There were still a few National Liberal or National Liberal & Conservative MP's about at the time. Indeed, I seem to recall one of them retiring from Parliament and becoming Treasurer of the Liberal Party!
He was named political journalist of the year this month, and counts the cabinet among his readers. So why does Spectator editor Fraser Nelson think the Tories are on course to lose both Scottish referendum and general election?
Maybe that's still the case?
https://twitter.com/D_Liebman/status/456889517941608448/photo/1