I've never been less excited about England - and it's wonderful

Obviously I'm still excited about the World Cup but what I'm less excited than ever for watching England play.

I'm one of those fair-weather football fans. I don't support a particular club, mainly because I only started paying attention when I went to university and lived with people who do. Supporting a football club is a bit like religion: you need to nail it down young and adult conversions are rare. My dad supported Raith Rovers, currently 7th in the Scottish Championship, but that was never a realistic option when I was a child in the East Midlands with friends who all supported Liverpool or Man. United. I keep up with who's up and who's down in the Premier League, partly because it's interesting and partly so I know who to console / mock on Monday morning at work.

But I always watched England play and some of my strongest memories are of the disbelief when David Beckham was sent off against Argentina in 1998, listening intently to the radio as England squandered a 1 goal lead against Brazil in 2002 (I was on a school trip that had to leave at half time) and Wayne Rooney being sent off against Portugal in 2006.


Read more »

We won't know for 10 years whether the Coalition was good or bad for the Lib Dems

On the face of it, "has coalition been good or bad for the Lib Dems" has a pretty obvious answer: Bad. Catastrophically, apocalyptically bad. They have lost almost all of the local government base they spent decades building up, all but one of their MEPs which, for a party more committed to Europe than any other, means a disproportionate loss of influence considering how the ALDE group held the balance of power in the European Parliament. And they look set to lose most of their MPs next year.

The trade-off when the coalition began was that spurning the chance to govern would make the Lib Dems look like a permanent protest party while taking it would add a new layer of realism to Lib Dem manifestos and promises in the future by making voters think of them as a 'party of government'. I remember before the 2010 and 2005 elections seeing Lib Dems touting polls saying that 35% to 40% would vote for them "if they thought they could win" so realism can be a factor.

The problem is that it's very hard to tell whether voters see the Lib Dems as a 'party of government' as the effects on voting aren't exactly uniform. Current popularity / unpopularity aside, Lib Dem minded people might be more likely to vote for them if being a 'party of government' makes them seem more likely to be able to carry out their policies. Equally, people who voted Lib Dem mainly as a protest or tactically may be less likely to vote for them if there's a chance of their policies being put into practice.

Both of these effects are fairly subtle and may cancel each other out but Clegg & Co. clearly decided that the former outweighed the latter.

Unfortunately both of these effects are totally overwhelmed by tuition fees (and all the broken promises that symbolised) and the very fact of being in government with the Conservatives. Tuition fees have almost irreparably destroyed the value of Lib Dem promises, particularly with younger people who, more than any other demographic, were their core supporters in 2010. This is the sort of Thatcher-vs-the-miners betrayal whose effects will last a generation and taints everything else they do. Being in government with the Conservatives may be temporary but both of these are going to be in force at the 2015 election, making the Lib Dem result in that election a poor measure on whether the 'party of government' thing has been beneficial or detrimental.

Assuming the coalition doesn't resume after the 2015 election, the 'in bed with the Tories' factor will start to subside but tuition fees will take much longer. It may be 2020 or 2025 before we have an election where the Lib Dem vote share isn't affected by either of those factors. That is if they aren't wiped out in 2015.

The two UKIPs and the 'racist party' question

A few weeks ago I finished reading Revolt on the Right by Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford. In his review Vernon Bogdanor called it "one of the most important books on British politics to have appeared for many years" and it's hard to disagree.

The key message is that, far from being just disgruntled Conservative voters, UKIP's surge in support comes from what Ford and Goodwin call "the left behind". Since Tony Blair, the focus of the main three political parties has been almost exclusively on the affluent middle classes, supporting globalisation, the liberalisation of labour markets, multiculturalism and immigration, all of which benefit the middle class more than the working class. Working class voters were previously attracted to Margaret Thatcher because of her social conservatism and voted for Tony Blair because Labour would provide material gains. But over the years they gradually found themselves being offered little materially by Labour while David Cameron's steps to embrace a more liberal social policy removed one of the main attractions of the Conservative party.
Rather than switching between two parties that offered them nothing, many dropped out of the electoral system altogether and it's striking that turnout in the 2010 general election was still lower than 1997 despite the result being much less certain (the traditional driver for turnout).


Read more »

Of course voters prefer single-party governments!

For the political geek there were some interesting stats in this week's Opinium / Observer poll, centred around what should happen if there's another hung parliament in 2015.

We asked whether government made up of just one political party or governments made up of multiple parties in coalition best served Britain and the result was fairly overwhelming support for single-party governments by 55% to 15%.

There are a few explanations for this and one is that the majority of governments since our political system began its current incarnation in 1945 have been single party and all of the ones that are remembered generally as successful are single party including the icons of the left (Clement Attlee) and the right (Maggie). Aside from the national government during the second world war, which I expect most simply associate with Winston Churchill rather than parties, the only period of multi-party government was the Lib-Lab pact of the 1970's which few remember fondly.


Read more »