Monday, February 7, 2011

The British General Election of 2005

The British General Election of 2005
by Donley T. Studlar
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia

A Historic Result
At the end of a one-month-long campaign, the Labour party achieved its third consecutive electoral victory on May 5, 2005, winning 356 seats out of 646 in the House of Commons, 55 percent of the total. The runner-up Conservatives won 197 seats, 31 percent; the Liberal Democrats 62 seats (their largest amount since the 1920s), 10 percent; and other parties, primarily in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, 30 seats, or 5 percent. Three independents, including anti-Iraq War candidate and former Labour member of Parliament George Galloway, won seats, the most since World War II.

Nevertheless, this was hardly a resounding victory. As Table 1 indicates, the shares of the vote did not correspond to the seat shares. Labour won only 35 percent of the votes cast, or only 22 percent of the total eligible electorate of the United Kingdom. This was a record low for a victorious party in a British election. Turnout was 61 percent, a slight increase on the modern record low at the last general election in 2001. "No excuse" postal voting was allowed for the first time. The Conservatives won 33 percent of the vote and actually outpolled Labour in England, where approximately 80 percent of the British population lives, by 36 percent to 35 percent, although they lost in seats there, 54 percent to 37 percent, with the Liberal Democrats gaining 23 percent of the vote in England but only 9 percent of the seats. Throughout the United Kingdom, the Liberal Democrats won 22 percent, and other parties received 10 percent.

For the ninth consecutive general election since 1974, the United Kingdom showed itself to have a multiparty electorate, even though it continues to have a largely two-party House of Commons. This is due not to gerrymandering but rather to the territorial distribution of party votes, the loss of population in many inner-city constituencies where Labour does well, and the fact that only one member is elected through plurality voting for each district. Constituency boundary revisions are not due until 2007. This result has reignited demands for a change in the single-member-district, simple-plurality electoral system to one reflecting more proportional results. But with the usual single-party majority in the legislature and government, any immediate change is unlikely.

Campaign Styles and Issues
The election campaign was a relatively dull affair until the closing days. The three major parties were not widely separated in ideology or positions on most issues. The major issues were the economy, social policy, and trust in leaders. Labour touted its record of good economic growth along with better health and educational services. The Conservatives complained about Prime Minister Tony Blair's untrustworthiness, especially over Iraq (although they supported the war on principle), and promised to improve health, education, and policing while exercising tighter control on immigration. The Liberal Democrats claimed to be the only alternative to two parties who were both to the right of center. They stood out for their positions against the Iraq War and student tuition fees.

Unlike the United States, there was not extensive debate on issues of moral values. Conservative leader Michael Howard suggested tightening the law on abortion early in the campaign, but then the parties agreed not to discuss it further. Such issues are subject to "free votes," not under party discipline, in the House of Commons.

Despite the presence of some small anti-European Union parties, one important issue that surprisingly did not feature much in the campaign was Britain's relationship to the European Union. Tony Blair's pledge to hold a referendum in 2006 on approval of the proposed EU constitution apparently took the immediate controversy out of this issue. Britain took over the rotating presidency of the European Union for six months in July 2005, gaining the opportunity to set the agenda of discussion.

Trust in the Government
During the latter part of the campaign, the issue of trust in the government focused on the shifting prewar advice that the attorney general had given the prime minister on the legality of the Iraq War. This raised an issue on which Tony Blair has been beleaguered, both within and outside his party, for three years, since a majority of the British public did not favor going to war.

Nevertheless, Labour survived this controversy electorally, although its vote and seats dropped from 2001 (see Table 1). Conservative leader Michael Howard, although able to unite his party better than recent leaders, was unable to overcome the image that the Conservatives would govern little differently from Labour other than that they were less caring about social welfare. After the election, Howard announced that he would step down as Conservative leader as soon as a replacement was chosen. This will be the fifth Conservative party leader since 1997, while Labour has had only one.

But Tony Blair already had pledged that this campaign would be his last as leader of the party. No sooner had the campaign ended than speculation began about how long he would remain. The heir apparent is his longtime chancellor of the exchequer (treasury secretary) Gordon Brown, whom many Labour activists consider to be more left wing than Blair.

With only marginal differences on issues, the campaign focused more on personalities, especially those of the party leaders, than ever before. Furthermore, campaign appeals were influenced by foreign political consultants, from the Australian Liberals (a right-wing party) in the case of the Conservatives and from the U.S. Democrats in the case of Labour. Thanks to Labour support for the Iraq policy of the U.S. administration of George W. Bush, U.S. Republican consultants stayed away from their previous natural allies, the Conservatives.

Regional Variations in Party Results
In Scotland, the number of seats was reduced by 13 to correct for previous central-level overrepresentation, since most domestic issues now are under the authority of the devolved Scottish parliament. Although Labour won 41 of the 59 seats in Scotland on 40 percent of the vote, there is four-party politics in that part of the United Kingdom. Each major party won seats; the Liberal Democrats finished second, with 23 percent of the vote and 11 seats. The party championing Scottish independence, the Scottish National Party (SNP), won six seats. The situation was similar in Wales. Labour won 29 of the 40 seats on 43 percent of the votes. The nationalist party, Plaid Cymru, won three.

In Northern Ireland, the party system is very different from the rest of the country. The two parties representing the less-compromising elements in each community, the Democratic Unionists (DUP) for the Protestants and Sinn Féin for the Catholics, won seats at the expense of the more moderate Protestant party, the Ulster Unionists (UUP). UUP leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner David Trimble lost his seat and resigned as party leader.

Despite Labour losing 47 seats, the number of women members of Parliament (MPs) rose slightly, mainly through internal Labour party efforts. Women now constitute 19.8 percent of MPs, up from 17.9 percent. Of the 128 women, 98 are Labour, an increase of three from 2001. Fifteen ethnic minority MPs of black or Asian descent were elected, 13 for Labour, despite Labour's loss of support among Muslims in several seats because of the Iraq War.

As noted, the results were very regional. Labour lost seats to the Liberal Democrats in the north of England and Scotland, while the Conservatives were their major competitors in the southeast around London. Among socioeconomic groups, Labour support held up better among women, the middle-aged, the middle class, and homeowners. Older voters were disproportionately Conservative, while the Liberal Democrats did especially well among women and younger voters. The major issues on people's minds were health care, education, crime, and pensions. While its support eroded in almost every social category, Labour's inroads into the middle class over the past three general elections, plus its remaining base in the working class, make it difficult to beat.

The cabinet Tony Blair appointed from MPs and members of the House of Lords contained many familiar faces, often in the same positions as in the previous Labour government. In opening Parliament the week after the election, the Queen's Speech set forth the new Labour government's agenda for the next year, including 44 bills. This included measures to introduce identity cards, reform disability benefits, restrict immigration and asylum claims, boost school standards, improve hygiene in public hospitals, tighten policing against antisocial behavior in cities, introduce a law against religious hatred, extend maternity leave benefits, restrict smoking indoors, strengthen antiterrorism legislation, and complete reform of the House of Lords. Once a royal commission reports, there will be a draft bill on pension reform. In foreign affairs, the government pledged to take a lead in securing more aid for Africa and in moderating climate change.

In summary, Labour won its third consecutive election for the first time ever, but with a reduced majority in Parliament and an even greater loss of votes. It showed not so much widespread popular support for the government as lack of confidence in the major alternative, the Conservatives, and an increasingly fragmented and apathetic electorate. Once Tony Blair departs as prime minister, the major question will be whether British electoral politics stabilizes under continued dominance of the Labour party or becomes more volatile.

Table 1:Party Votes and Seats in Last Two General Elections, United Kingdom
                                         2001                                 2005
                          % of Votes  % of Seats         % of Vote  % of Seats
Labour                       41           63                         35              55
Conservative              32           25                         32              31
Liberal Democrats     18             8                          22              10
Other                          9              5                          10                5
                                       2001                                  2005
Voter turnout                    59%                                   61%

27 comments:

  1. When reading this, I found the system of voting used to be very different compared to what is done here in America. It seems to me that Labour party gets a large and unfairly disproportionate amount of seats in comparrison to the number of the vote they reciecve. According to the reading, the Conservatives outpolled Labour in England where "80% of the British population lives." If this is the case, the Conservatives seem to better represent the opinion of the English people, who are the true electorate of Parliament. This, in my opinion, is not true representation of the constituents of British Parliament in 2005.

    Aaron

    ReplyDelete
  2. Urnne is right...the conservatives do seem to represent the people in a better manner, which would explain the 47.1% of seats they now control. I did notice about halfway through that it said the parties agreed not to participate in "debate on issues of moral values," and I'm sure many would disagree with me, but I actually would prefer if all governments worked that way. It just seems like they would be able to get more done instead of complaining about how Jesus wants it done one way. No offense.

    Luke

    ReplyDelete
  3. haha Luke, that's terrible! But I agree with you. I would kind of like it if all governments worked that way too, all though Americans would practically kill eachother. I'm not sure how well that would work, but if it works for the British, it could possibly work for other countries.

    Caroline B.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ehhhhhh, this article didn't really draw any issue from me; it was more factual than anything. Different people use different governments, and this just adds on to that ideal. Commenting on Luke and Caroline's post though, I see no point in trying to install this type of government into another country. British are known for their "unreligous" ideals and it transfers to their government process. There is no possible way that the sterotypical, arrogant, obese, bible-loving American would EVER allow a government that rules without a moral backbone.

    -Caaaasssseeeyyyy LLOooooo

    ReplyDelete
  5. Casey is harsh, but right. I doubt any American would like if our government was like that. I personally would think we could accomplish more if we worked liked the British, but I just don't think that's going to happen.

    -Summer D.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with Casey only on the issue that this reading was very factual. It was a bit confusing for me personally to keep up with all of the percentages that each party obtained, the number of seats etc.
    One thing that i thought was interesting was how they broke down which groups of people followed each political party. At the end of the reading it listed numerous actions that Britain is going to take to improve not only themselves, but the surrounding countries(Africa)-totalling 44 bills. How realistic is that? I mean speaking from the perspective of our government, that's a lot,(Britain)but i hope they can accomplish the bills that were set on their plates, because it's definately a full one.
    Alex B.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have to agree with Alex and Casey on the reading (The disliking part). Although I did find it interesting how the conservatives represent the opinion of the people. I would love to see our government use this for atleast a day. Just because I know many would debate against this due to the fact that they rule without a moral value.I do however, have to agree with Alex on the intriguing way they break down the party and votes and how many seats they get. Although, this may be a bit confusing it wouldn't work for the Americans. However, for others it may...

    -Chelsey A.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree that this article was mostly factual, and therefore was extremely boring to read. I think that the government that the Britian's have works very well for them. While it seems very ideal, I highly doubt that it would work if tested on any other area, much like how Democracy does not work for everyone. But unlike Casey Lo's stereotypical point that "sterotypical, arrogant, obese, bible-loving American would EVER allow a government that rules without a moral backbone", I am sure there is people that are not Christian's that still prefer morals in the governmental system.

    Caroline H.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This article was extemly boring because it was factual. the government that britian has in place now might work for them but it would never work in america...and on casey's comment about the "sterotypical, arrogant, obese, bible-loving american.." that comment is extremly Hypocritical because only someone who is sterotypical and arrogant can say something like that. therefore i think that comment is wrong and should be disregarded

    ReplyDelete
  10. the comment above was mine
    Beau D

    ReplyDelete
  11. The above article by Donley Studley was qutie information of the electoral section of the United Kingdom's government. I agree with the points Aaron and Luke made earlier in their post as they pointed out the unique type of way the "Britains" come to their results. Luke showed us, which seemed to be extremely interesting and a bit confusing at the same time,of how some of the politcal parties are not properly represented or as Americans believe to be properly represented. With this reading as a class we can begin to understand the diversity in which the world's governments work by and come out of the American shell we have become trapped inside. It shall be great to experience if the Labour Party will remain in control even after the resignation of the Prime Minister and by watching him speak makes in even more personal for myself to understand more of the U.K.'s goverment system.

    Grey M.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I completely agree with c-lo. This guy was rambling on giving us information that was not necessary to support what he was trying to say. I also think the installation of this government into other countries would have no chance of a smooth transition. If possible, it would have to be a gradual process to make a change this large in our government system.

    Kasey H.

    ReplyDelete
  13. First off I would like to say to Beau Britain is spelled incorrectly and needs to be capitalized.
    Second Casey I can see where you are saying that the Bible Loving Americans would never allow for a government that didn't have a "moral backbone" and I can understand that but where Luke says and the reading says that they agree to not participate in issues dealing with "moral values" because under the first amendment separation of church and state that is how American politics and government are supposed to be ran in the first place so I would love for us to get away from religion or from the words of Luke Murray "how jesus would have done it!"

    Bradley Benson

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree with Luke on this. I believe that our government needs to put the moral issues aside for a while for some time. For example whenever the constant battle of abortion goes on in congress, they argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue....and then argue even more. With doing that, ABSOLUTELY nothing gets accomplished. Not only on that moral issue, but on national issues such as economy, unemployment rate, forein affairs, etc. That is why I believe that United States would see such a vast improvement if they were to adopt views such as these, at least while our economy is the worst that has been seen since 1928.

    Francisco d.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Like some of my fellow classmates, I found this article more factual than interesting. Also, I found it a bit boring. I about fell asleep after reading it. Although, I like how this piece demonstrates the UK's system of government and how it is different such as here in the U.S. I like Casey's statement in which states that "different people use different governments". This specific system is obviously working across the Atlantic but to be honest, I don't see it happening anytime soon here. Each government I think, has it's own function due to the fact that they have different situations that lay on their plate. It seems as if the United States Government and how it works, has more respect for each one another and tends to be old-schooled. But sometimes we should consider that if we aren't getting things done, we should ask why and try to figure out why things aren't working. Maybe arguing a lot is not a good thing. After watching the deliberations in class on what the UK undergoes, it has come to my attention not only that we are different but that this system probably won't work here in the states. Maybe somewhere else, but not here in US. Well, not anytime soon that is.

    -Lorenzo P.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree with what Luke and Uurnne had to say on how the conservative party is a better representation then the labour party. It is clear that they represnt the people better then the other parties. This government works well over seas but I am not sure if this system would work as well here. Yes it might seem good now for the U.S. but in the end there is nothing wrong with our system now.

    Kevin S.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This article was very factual but also very boring. Studlar loses me after a couple of sentences with the percent of votes for all of Britain. I agree with luke and urrne as well because the conservative party did seem to have a unfair amount of seats. The British government works well for a country with such small size, but would not in America. I also agree with Luke in that I feel all governments would be able to accomplish more if religion was set aside for some decisions.

    Nic C.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This article was a little too factual for me. I found my self drifting off in the first paragraph. However, it does mention a lot of important information. I agree with what the majority of the posts have said about the conservative party best representing the people of the UK. The way the UK handles their political issues and the way we handle them is very different. Just think of how they argue compared to ours, we watched the House of Commons meeting and witnessed how each person is heard and the snappy comments they can make without being blacklisted. This way of arguing would never hold in the US, that’s why I do not believe the system mentioned in this article would work here in the US.

    MK

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think this article was kinda interesting and kinda boring. Although the british can half a hectic way of dealing with political issues, they seem to be effective. I found it quite interesting that the British do not argue about things that deal with moral issues. Luke was right when he said governments work better that way. Sometimes moral issues cause such an upwelling of emotion in a person or group of people that it clouds there judgement when it is time to consider things that really matter. That is why i should be the president and this would be such an awesome country with me as the leader! So remember "If yoiu have half a brains, Vote for james" in 2037.
    -jw

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree with those above who have stated this arcticle is rather bland, simply due to the fact that its mainly factual. I must disagree with Luke in that if you attepmt to eliminate morals from a socety, you will create a monster that cannot be contorlled. Morals are extremely important to society and its proper function.
    BenE

    ReplyDelete
  21. In the United States, party ideals and morals often coincide. Constituents mostly choose their party based on the ideals with which they agree or disagree. I think we can all agree with this. Amorality campaigns for MP's work in the UK and, quite frankly, I am a fan. It seems like you vote for the PERSON, not for the PARTY, as in the US. Moral issues are "subject to free votes, not under party discipline" in the UK system, so the representatives you choose are free to vote based on what they think and not along party lines. I like that system much more than what we have in US Congress.

    Julia S.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I found this article to be boring because it presented so many facts. But, after looking at the facts, I agree with Aaron that the elections are sometimes predetermined, because the conservatists make up 47.1 % of the poulation. As far as the seperation of church and state go, I think that we need to have a more definite stance on the issue. It seems as though many in government have different opinions on it, and they need to go with one or the other and enforce the rules regarding it.

    -Jake Willcox

    ReplyDelete
  23. I like the system in the UK much better than what we have here, becasuse it seems too often are arguments are clouded by our morals and former beliefs. The way voting and seat percentages work; however, is very confusing and could be made much simpler and more fair. Morals may be important in society however in government they are not needed. It seems to function well England, but in the US we cling to closely to our morals.
    Mary Helen Simpson

    ReplyDelete
  24. With any election system that is not soley popular vote, there will be cases where one party gets an advantage over another. I agree with ben's point about morals because every goverment system is deep down based upon morals. For example, laws are put in place to protect people. Speed limits dont seem to derive from morals but if you think about it, these limits are put in place to protect yourself and others; a simple moral issue. You can compare the effectiveness of any governement to ours but its effectiveness can not be determined untill people have experienced it first hand.

    Livy

    ReplyDelete
  25. I agree with Luke and Casey that our government focuses to heavily on moral concepts of right and wrong rather than conducting lawful conclusions. I believe that the UK has a strong government and I like the way it operates in that it seems to be more benefical and much more logical in pleasing the people and solving issues.

    Giorgia G.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I agree with Giorgia's post in that how the government runs for the UK works for them but would never work for the United States. We are too used to the way our government has always been, which focuses heavily on moral issues.

    Taylor H

    ReplyDelete
  27. Although I do somewhat believe what everyone else is saying about morals in America, I still believe the Uk has some morals in their gov't. Not as much, but they do. Yes, we probably couldn't do things their way because we are too scared about what the person next to us thinks.

    Caroline B.

    ReplyDelete