Dear reader, please don't be too worried and immediately look elsewhere - this posting won't feature too heavily on the monetary deficit or debt that is affecting the UK.
Rather this is about the other two deficits that are plaguing the UK.
When the so called 'expenses' scandal broke, many people expected the politicians that had their noses so deep into the public purse and were claiming expenses that, if not criminally wrong were at least ethically so, would be severely punished at the ballot box. Some of them were but maybe not enough. Some went to prison but again, not enough.
In two recent by-elections - Heywood and Clacton - much has been made of the the results. In Heywood, Labour clung onto a supposedly safe seat with a much reduced majority of 617 votes, from a concerted challenge by UKIP. The UKIP leaders crow that if just 20% of the Tory vote had come their way, instead of being 'split' (in their view) then they would have had a remarkable night.
These same UKIP leaders also shout about the victory of their candidate, Douglas Carswell, in Claction, where he actually increased the majority with which he previously won, when he did so as a Conservative candidate at the 2010 General Election.
Look a little closer though and these results seem less spectacular and actually quite worrying.
In Clacton, the winner, Douglas Carswell was a very active local MP for the Conservative party. His wider activism around European issues, also assured him of media air-time as a prominent Euro-sceptic Tory. His defection to UKIP was not a complete surprise and neither was his decision to stand down and force a by-election. That decision speaks to an integrity that is all too lacking among so many of the Westminster elite.
It is a bit rich though for Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, to claim that the election of that party's first MP was about a tide of anti-establishment voting which was ready to sweep away the 'out of touch 'Westminster' parties. The electoral turn-out in Claction was just over 51%. So when you consider Farage's comments it seems that people were so disgusted with the Westminster elite that barely half of them could be bothered to vote. The Clacton turn-out at the General Election was 64% so whatever the message was it can't be said to be a ringing endorsement of Farage's policies.
Again,at Heywood we see a much diminished turn-out - down from 57.5% at the General Election to 36.2% in the by election. So barely one in three voters could be bothered to vote. Some might say that this apathetic response is the voting equivalent of the old 'a pox on all your houses' epithet. Labour talk about how the voters of Heywood voted against a 'viciously cruel and austerity driven Tory government' but don't mention the far from ringing mandate that their candidate gained. UKIP talk about breaking the mould etc., but the reality is that they too couldn't engage with or mobilise the voters.
For the Tories, Heywood does support their contention that a vote for UKIP gets Ed Miliband into Downing Street and power. The message from Clacton was always going to be hard for the Conservatives - Carswell was a very good and involved local MP and his integrity shone through. It will be interesting to see how he works alongside Farage in the coming weeks and months.
Clearly Carswell has depth and his views on Europe and the uncontrolled immigration that the EU and the Labour Party unleashed on the UK, resonate with voters and are aligned with Farage. However, can the same be said for the social and economic policies put forward by UKIP? I may be wrong but I always thought that Carswell was 'sound' on the economy and understood the critical need for deficit and debt reduction and smaller government - that isn't entirely in accord with UKIP's policies. Details on these policies are scant but suggest that UKIP follow a much more interventionist, some might say socialist, approach towards the economy - certainly if their 'spend whatever you like' pledge to the NHS is anything to go by.
I come back though to the turn-out. In both cases significantly below the General Election levels.
We all know that the European Project has a major democratic deficit. In the UK, barely 34.7% of those eligible bothered to vote in the 2014 MEP elections. The UK wasn't alone in recording such poor rates of participation. As you can see in the below table, barely 13% in Slovakia bothered to vote!
Now though we see that just prior to a General Election, voter apathy for the UK parliament remains. The political parties are said to be out of touch - and that includes UKIP! The same source of the previous table (http://www.ukpolitical.info) also provides the below table on turn-out in UK General Elections, since 1945 We all need to hope that the increases seen in 2010 are built upon and we get back to the turn-out levels seen in the late 1970s through to the 1990s.
Perhaps there is a message for David Cameron in the above table? Maybe it is, that when Margaret Thatcher pursued unpopular but many believe absolutely necessary policies, she brought many voters out to vote. Indeed, they voted for her and her successor, John Major, in significant numbers and brought large parliamentary success for the Conservatives. Yes they also voted against her and her policies but the majority voted for the Conservative party.
Strange that! Give people the hard choice or the soft irresponsible one that Labour pushed and the people chose the tough one on four separate occasions and in large numbers. Who would have thought it?
While Cameron and his pollsters are thinking about the upcoming General Election, they should also maybe think about these things.
People, other than self-interested public sector union members, haven't taken to the streets in protest about austerity. I believe that this demonstrates that 'the people' understand the need to rein in public spending. The need for a welfare cap seems to now be universally accepted. People can see that those in the public sector have had it too easy and have been cossetted from the realities of life that 'they' have had to face - redundancy, under-performing and uncertain pensions, real wage cuts and belt-tightening - at home and at work.
'The people' will vote for a party that addresses the first deficit - that of integrity. A party that does what is right for the UK. The Conservatives deserve credit for having the courage to push forward with reforms but they have been too timid. I accept that much of that lack of backbone was because of the compromises that were forced upon them by their coalition partners - the fast-fading Liberal Democrats - but when they come before the electorate again, they must stress their economic competence and emphasize the incompetence and economic mal-administration of the Labour Party. The electorate know who got us into this mess!
'The people' will also vote for a party that addresses the second deficit - that of democracy. Again, a party that does what is right for the UK. One that allows the people of the UK a say on the UK's continued participation in the European Union and one that addresses the democracy needs within the UK. The so-called 'West Lothian' question has never gone away but the recent Scottish Referendum has brought a much greater focus onto this and to the democratic deficit that is suffered by the English. I don't advocate an 'English parliament' but English MPs for 'English' votes seems entirely reasonable.
Cameron and Co. need to openly push the message about how they can and will address these two deficits and in the process the other deficit and debt reduction and they now need to do so, unfettered by their Coalition partners. So it is time to ditch the Lib Dems. It shan't be too difficult to find an excuse and it allows for a decent period of time - for both parties - to put some clear water between themselves and allow their policy differences to be evident.
I will come back later on what those Conservative policies, should look like.
Rather this is about the other two deficits that are plaguing the UK.
When the so called 'expenses' scandal broke, many people expected the politicians that had their noses so deep into the public purse and were claiming expenses that, if not criminally wrong were at least ethically so, would be severely punished at the ballot box. Some of them were but maybe not enough. Some went to prison but again, not enough.
In two recent by-elections - Heywood and Clacton - much has been made of the the results. In Heywood, Labour clung onto a supposedly safe seat with a much reduced majority of 617 votes, from a concerted challenge by UKIP. The UKIP leaders crow that if just 20% of the Tory vote had come their way, instead of being 'split' (in their view) then they would have had a remarkable night.
These same UKIP leaders also shout about the victory of their candidate, Douglas Carswell, in Claction, where he actually increased the majority with which he previously won, when he did so as a Conservative candidate at the 2010 General Election.
Look a little closer though and these results seem less spectacular and actually quite worrying.
In Clacton, the winner, Douglas Carswell was a very active local MP for the Conservative party. His wider activism around European issues, also assured him of media air-time as a prominent Euro-sceptic Tory. His defection to UKIP was not a complete surprise and neither was his decision to stand down and force a by-election. That decision speaks to an integrity that is all too lacking among so many of the Westminster elite.
It is a bit rich though for Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, to claim that the election of that party's first MP was about a tide of anti-establishment voting which was ready to sweep away the 'out of touch 'Westminster' parties. The electoral turn-out in Claction was just over 51%. So when you consider Farage's comments it seems that people were so disgusted with the Westminster elite that barely half of them could be bothered to vote. The Clacton turn-out at the General Election was 64% so whatever the message was it can't be said to be a ringing endorsement of Farage's policies.
Again,at Heywood we see a much diminished turn-out - down from 57.5% at the General Election to 36.2% in the by election. So barely one in three voters could be bothered to vote. Some might say that this apathetic response is the voting equivalent of the old 'a pox on all your houses' epithet. Labour talk about how the voters of Heywood voted against a 'viciously cruel and austerity driven Tory government' but don't mention the far from ringing mandate that their candidate gained. UKIP talk about breaking the mould etc., but the reality is that they too couldn't engage with or mobilise the voters.
For the Tories, Heywood does support their contention that a vote for UKIP gets Ed Miliband into Downing Street and power. The message from Clacton was always going to be hard for the Conservatives - Carswell was a very good and involved local MP and his integrity shone through. It will be interesting to see how he works alongside Farage in the coming weeks and months.
Clearly Carswell has depth and his views on Europe and the uncontrolled immigration that the EU and the Labour Party unleashed on the UK, resonate with voters and are aligned with Farage. However, can the same be said for the social and economic policies put forward by UKIP? I may be wrong but I always thought that Carswell was 'sound' on the economy and understood the critical need for deficit and debt reduction and smaller government - that isn't entirely in accord with UKIP's policies. Details on these policies are scant but suggest that UKIP follow a much more interventionist, some might say socialist, approach towards the economy - certainly if their 'spend whatever you like' pledge to the NHS is anything to go by.
I come back though to the turn-out. In both cases significantly below the General Election levels.
We all know that the European Project has a major democratic deficit. In the UK, barely 34.7% of those eligible bothered to vote in the 2014 MEP elections. The UK wasn't alone in recording such poor rates of participation. As you can see in the below table, barely 13% in Slovakia bothered to vote!
| Member States | 1979 | 1984 | 1989 | 1994 | 1999 | 2004 | 2009 | 2014 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 91.36 | 92.09 | 90.73 | 90.66 | 91.05 | 90.81 | 90.39 | 90 |
| Denmark | 47.82 | 52.38 | 46.17 | 52.92 | 50.46 | 47.89 | 59.54 | 56.4 |
| Germany | 65.73 | 56.76 | 62.28 | 60.02 | 45.19 | 43 | 43.27 | 47.9 |
| Ireland | 63.61 | 47.56 | 68.28 | 43.98 | 50.21 | 58.58 | 58.64 | 51.6 |
| France | 60.71 | 56.72 | 48.8 | 52.71 | 46.76 | 42.76 | 40.63 | 43.5 |
| Italy | 85.65 | 82.47 | 81.07 | 73.6 | 69.76 | 71.72 | 65.05 | 60 |
| Luxembourg | 88.91 | 88.79 | 87.39 | 88.55 | 87.27 | 91.35 | 90.76 | 90 |
| Netherlands | 58.12 | 50.88 | 47.48 | 35.69 | 30.02 | 39.26 | 36.75 | 37 |
| United Kingdom | 32.35 | 32.57 | 36.37 | 36.43 | 24 | 38.52 | 34.7 | 34.19 |
| Greece | 80.59 | 80.03 | 73.18 | 70.25 | 63.22 | 52.61 | 58.2 | |
| Spain | 54.71 | 59.14 | 63.05 | 45.14 | 44.87 | 45.90 | ||
| Portugal | 51.1 | 35.54 | 39.93 | 38.6 | 36.77 | 34.50 | ||
| Sweden | 38.84 | 37.85 | 45.53 | 48.8 | ||||
| Austria | 49.4 | 42.43 | 45.97 | 45.7 | ||||
| Finland | 30.14 | 39.43 | 38.6 | 40.9 | ||||
| Czech Republic | 28.3 | 28.2 | 19.5 | |||||
| Estonia | 26.83 | 43.9 | 36.44 | |||||
| Cyprus | 72.5 | 59.4 | 43.97 | |||||
| Lithuania | 48.38 | 20.98 | 44.91 | |||||
| Latvia | 41.34 | 53.7 | 30.04 | |||||
| Hungary | 38.5 | 36.31 | 28.92 | |||||
| Malta | 82.39 | 78.79 | 74.81 | |||||
| Poland | 20.87 | 24.53 | 22.7 | |||||
| Slovenia | 28.35 | 28.37 | 20.96 | |||||
| Slovakia | 16.97 | 19.64 | 13 | |||||
| Bulgaria | 38.99 | 35.50 | ||||||
| Romania | 27.67 | 32.16 | ||||||
| Croatia | 25.06 | |||||||
| Average EU turnout | 61.99 | 58.98 | 58.41 | 56.67 | 49.51 | 45.47 | 43 | 43.09 |
Now though we see that just prior to a General Election, voter apathy for the UK parliament remains. The political parties are said to be out of touch - and that includes UKIP! The same source of the previous table (http://www.ukpolitical.info) also provides the below table on turn-out in UK General Elections, since 1945 We all need to hope that the increases seen in 2010 are built upon and we get back to the turn-out levels seen in the late 1970s through to the 1990s.
| Year | UK | England | Wales | Scotland | N.Ireland |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 65.1 | 65.5 | 64.7 | 63.8 | 57.6 |
| 2005 | 61.4 | 61.3 | 62.6 | 60.8 | 62.9 |
| 2001 | 59.4 | 59.2 | 61.6 | 58.2 | 68 |
| 1997 | 71.4 | 71.4 | 73.5 | 71.3 | 67.1 |
| 1992 | 77.7 | 78 | 79.7 | 75.5 | 69.8 |
| 1987 | 75.3 | 75.4 | 78.9 | 75.1 | 67 |
| 1983 | 72.7 | 72.5 | 76.1 | 72.7 | 72.9 |
| 1979 | 76 | 75.9 | 79.4 | 76.8 | 67.7 |
| 1974 Oct | 72.8 | 72.6 | 76.6 | 74.8 | 67.7 |
| 1974 Feb | 78.8 | 79 | 80 | 79 | 69.9 |
| 1970 | 72 | 71.4 | 77.4 | 74.1 | 76.6 |
| 1966 | 75.8 | 75.9 | 79 | 76 | 66.1 |
| 1964 | 77.1 | 77 | 80.1 | 77.6 | 71.7 |
| 1959 | 78.7 | 78.9 | 82.6 | 78.1 | 65.9 |
| 1955 | 76.8 | 76.9 | 79.6 | 75.1 | 74.1 |
| 1951 | 82.6 | 82.7 | 84.4 | 81.2 | 79.9 |
| 1950 | 83.9 | 84.4 | 84.8 | 80.9 | 77.4 |
| 1945 | 72.8 | 73.4 | 75.7 | 69 | 67.4 |
Perhaps there is a message for David Cameron in the above table? Maybe it is, that when Margaret Thatcher pursued unpopular but many believe absolutely necessary policies, she brought many voters out to vote. Indeed, they voted for her and her successor, John Major, in significant numbers and brought large parliamentary success for the Conservatives. Yes they also voted against her and her policies but the majority voted for the Conservative party.
Strange that! Give people the hard choice or the soft irresponsible one that Labour pushed and the people chose the tough one on four separate occasions and in large numbers. Who would have thought it?
While Cameron and his pollsters are thinking about the upcoming General Election, they should also maybe think about these things.
People, other than self-interested public sector union members, haven't taken to the streets in protest about austerity. I believe that this demonstrates that 'the people' understand the need to rein in public spending. The need for a welfare cap seems to now be universally accepted. People can see that those in the public sector have had it too easy and have been cossetted from the realities of life that 'they' have had to face - redundancy, under-performing and uncertain pensions, real wage cuts and belt-tightening - at home and at work.
'The people' will vote for a party that addresses the first deficit - that of integrity. A party that does what is right for the UK. The Conservatives deserve credit for having the courage to push forward with reforms but they have been too timid. I accept that much of that lack of backbone was because of the compromises that were forced upon them by their coalition partners - the fast-fading Liberal Democrats - but when they come before the electorate again, they must stress their economic competence and emphasize the incompetence and economic mal-administration of the Labour Party. The electorate know who got us into this mess!
'The people' will also vote for a party that addresses the second deficit - that of democracy. Again, a party that does what is right for the UK. One that allows the people of the UK a say on the UK's continued participation in the European Union and one that addresses the democracy needs within the UK. The so-called 'West Lothian' question has never gone away but the recent Scottish Referendum has brought a much greater focus onto this and to the democratic deficit that is suffered by the English. I don't advocate an 'English parliament' but English MPs for 'English' votes seems entirely reasonable.
Cameron and Co. need to openly push the message about how they can and will address these two deficits and in the process the other deficit and debt reduction and they now need to do so, unfettered by their Coalition partners. So it is time to ditch the Lib Dems. It shan't be too difficult to find an excuse and it allows for a decent period of time - for both parties - to put some clear water between themselves and allow their policy differences to be evident.
I will come back later on what those Conservative policies, should look like.
No comments:
Post a Comment