Could the timing issue cause a coalition split?

As we recall the concession that finally delivered the Lib Dems as coalition partners with the Tories was the voting reform referendum and the measure was included in yesterday’s Queen’s Speech. It’s this, of course, that the Blues found most difficult to swallow.

The question that could cause a rift is when it takes place. According the the Guardian the LDs are pushing for it to be earlier rather than later with May 5 2011 - the day of next year’s local, Scottish and Welsh elections being suggested.

The coalition partners would campaign on either side of the voting reform argument which would make it much easier for the yellows in their first big post-coalition deal election test.

The May 2011 elections have been flagged as ones when Clegg’s party could come under severe pressure and to be seen to be against the blues on this big matter would make it easier to assert their separate identity

It would also demonstrate to supporters one big tangible thing that they got from agreeing to the deal.

It’s planned that the referendum measure will be included in a bill that will include other key changes such as larger constituencies which are equalised in size - a measure that could make the electoral system less Labour-friendly. This, it’s said, could take time and make it difficult meeting the May 2011 date.

Who is going to win the coalition timing argument? When will the referendum be held? Will Britain adopt a new voting system. All of these look like good issues for political betting markets.

Mike Smithson

Commons Library Research - 2009 local elections

Is it their resource that’s making the difference in the marginals?

This is to highlight the excellent piece put up on PB2 a few hours ago by Bunnco - in his series of what might be causing the bigger swings in the marginals.

For in his second look at the issue he suggests that the massive decline in Labour councillors in the key seats together with the corresponding increase in Tory ones might be providing Cameron’s party with an extra edge.

For having a councillor does two main things - it means that the wards to you hold are worked at much harder and it also can result in extra cash coming into local party coffers.

For one of the big changes in local government in recent times has been the allowances that are paid to councillors and there’s a strong tradition for parts of this to be ploughed back into the election machine that won the ward in the first place.

And all the experience is that when you lose council seats, as Labour has been doing on a big scale in recent times, then it undermines your on-the-ground campaigning capabilities.

A lot is made of the resource that Michael Ashcroft has pumped in to key seats. My guess is that this has been dwarfed by what councillors are doing.

Bunnco’s analysis is well worth reading,

Mike Smithson

Could Ken be Labour candidate once again?

What are we to make of the stream of little reports that suggest that Ken Livingston might be manoeuvring to be Labour’s candidate for the London mayoralty in 2012?

The Standard’s Paul Waugh has blogged about Labour’s decision to appoint one of Ken’s key aides to the big post of running the party’s London campaigns and wondered whether a return might be in the offing. So should you be risking your money on Mayor Ken 2012?

He has shown time and time again that he is the supreme politician when it comes to dealing with his party’s structures.

It will be recalled that he was first elected in 2000 as an independent and then managed to get himself back into the party so he could be the official candidate four years later. The fact that Gordon Brown was opposed and someone else had already been selected was seen as nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

If Ken wants it then he’s going to be a formidable figure to challenge. He’s one of those politicians who transcend traditional party loyalties and in each of his three mayoral elections he’s won votes from right across the spectrum

The election is only two and a half years away and I’ve just had a small flutter at 14/1 with William Hill that Ken will once again return to City Hall.

PaddyPower offer 7/2 that he will be the Labour candidate and 8/1 on him succeeding. The latter is the same as
Ladbrokes is offering.

Assuming that the Tories do form the next government then the election will take place about two years in when you can see things being very challenging. And wow - what a boost to Labour it would be if Ken returned.

Mike Smithson

What do local by elections tell us?

Thursday’s local by-election results were among the worst that I can remember for the Conservatives. The Party lost five out of seven seats it was defending, and saw its vote share fall sharply almost everywhere. By contrast, Labour and the Liberal Democrats performed extremely well, making a net gain of four and two, respectively. Naturally, both parties’ activists have been heartened by this, and Conservatives, judging by the blogs, have been perplexed.

Currently, opinion polls have been giving the Conservatives leads that range from 8% to 17%. Do these local results, being actual, as opposed to notional, votes, prove that the polls are wrong? Almost certainly not.

To begin with, one has to look at the parties’ starting points. The Conservatives hold as many local council seats as Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined. The local elections of 2006 to 2009 gave the Conservatives huge leads, in terms of vote share, and huge gains in terms of seats. They were not just winning the marginal seats, but chipping away at their opponents’ bedrock. It is hard to see what else was left for the Conservatives to gain, unless they were to stage an unlikely comeback in authorities like Sheffield and Liverpool. In each of those years, the Conservatives had leads, in terms of projected vote share, of 14% to 20%; the Conservatives could still enjoy a lead in double figures, and be losing large numbers of local council seats.

As a result, the Conservatives are defending many more seats than either of their main opponents, in local by-elections. Indeed, since the last round of local elections, on 4th June, the Conservatives have had to defend 42 seats, compared to 11 for Labour, 16 for the Liberal Democrats, and 16 for Independents, and smaller parties. As a result, they have a good deal more that they can potentially lose than either of their principal opponents.

Nevertheless, the Conservatives have lost heavily over this period. They have suffered a net loss of 15 seats, while Labour has made a net gain of seven, and the Liberal Democrats, a net gain of six. And, this is at a time when opinion polls have shown a large Conservative lead. So does this matter?

The answer is no. I’m stating the obvious, but local by-elections, over the course of several months, will give a good indication of the parties’ standing in local elections, but will give no indication of the parties’ standing in the coming general election.

By way of comparison, from May 1996, up till the general election, the Conservatives made a net gain of 24 seats in local by-elections. Between May 2000 and the 2001 general election, they also did well, with a net gain of 26 seats, according to Keith Edkins’ archive (www.gwydir.demon.co.uk) But, in both general elections, they were heavily defeated. And this should cause no surprise.

Local elections (and particularly, local by-elections) are heavily influenced by local issues, as well as the intervention, or withdrawal of minor parties and independents from contests. General elections are decided on national issues, and while support for the minor parties is growing, it remains marginal in most constituencies. When it comes to predicting the winner of a general election, look to the national opinion polls, not local by-elections.

Do these local by-elections tell us anything?

I think they indicate that were there to be a stand-alone round of local elections, next year, the Conservatives would lose a significant number of seats, even if they had a fair-sized lead, in terms of vote share. However, the local elections will probably be held on the same day as the general election, which should enable the Conservatives to do better than one might expect in the local contests. Alternatively, if Gordon Brown goes for a March election, and (as expected) loses, the Conservatives may well make gains in local elections held a few weeks later, as Labour voters are likely to be demoralised.

However, the Conservatives are past their peak, in terms of local council contests. Assuming that they win the next general election, they will almost certainly suffer big seat losses in 2011, 2012, and 2013, even if their vote share is reasonable for an incumbent government.

Sean Fear used to write a regular feature for the site on Friday evenings. Now he makes the occasional guest contribution. Long-time PBers might recall that in the 2004/2005 period Sean was just about the only Tory who regularly posted.