Month: November 2012
The UK is having its first elections for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) tomorrow, (Thursday 15th November). Citizens will have the chance to elect an official who will have the powers to:
- appoint and dismiss chief constables
- set out a five-year police and crime plan
- determine local policing priorities
- Hold the election at the weekend, not a Thursday. Why?
- Some democracies hold elections at weekends and research suggests that this helps turnout.
- Better still, allow voting over several days. Why?
- As the US election showed, many US states allow voting weeks in advance. Why not allow voting to take place over several days? Research shows how this can improve turnout.
- Provide more information about candidates. Why?
- As I said before, research shows that providing free-post leaflets to candidates helps boost turnout. The government decided against this and instead set up a website. This is problematic because a significant amount of the UK still doesn’t have internet access. A telephone line for the public has been set up, but it has received criticisms.
- Hold the elections in May. Why?
- November is a bad time for electoral officials who are busy updating the electoral register. This means that they their resources are drained and they cannot invest in public awareness activities, as they might at other points in the year. I interviewed many electoral administrators and they were concerned about a November election.
- More importantly, research shows that combining elections can help boost turnout. If elections were combined with local or other elections in May, turnout might have been much higher. Ideally, combine it with a general election.
- There have been some claims that November’s ‘early and dark nights’ reduce turnout, I’m not aware of any research that demonstrates this. But please correct me if I’m wrong.
- Plan better.
- Research shows that errors made in the way that elections are run, voters’ interactions with poll workers etc., can undermine confidence. The Electoral Commission issued some early warnings that planning had not progressed sufficiently at the earlier stages. There are some reports of leaflets not being delivered on time, problems with the telephone helpful for voters and confusion about who can and cannot be a candidate. Some teething problems are inevitable, but they might have been avoided, and won’t help turnout and public trust.
Earlier in the summer, there was some speculation that Tony Blair may yet dramatically return as Prime Minister.
When asked by the Evening Standard whether he would want another term he said ‘sure’.
Some British Prime Ministers have returned to office after leaving power. These include Lord Palmerston, Benjamin Disraeli, William Gladstone, Lord Salisbury, Stanley Baldwin, Winston Churchill and Harold Wilson. Most recent leaders, as Kevin Theakston notes, tend to end up doing a variety of other things.
But was Tony Blair any good the first time around?
This is obviously a very controversial question. For some he will be remembered as a ‘war monger’ because of his decision to invade Iraq; for others an apologist for Thatcherism, for dropping many of Labour’s left wing policies; for others the successful moderniser of the Labour party who presided over a successive years of economic prosperity and growth in Britain, and whose achievements also included peace in Northern Ireland.
There has been very little explicit scholarly work which has sort to evaluate Prime Ministerial performance. This stands in great contrast to the the US where assessing American Presidents has span many pages.
Dr. Jim Buller (University of York) and I have just published a new article on how political scientists should assess British Prime Ministers. Our method provides a framework for assessing whether they are successful at winning office and maintaining a sense of governing competence, particularly on the key issue of the economy.
The article considers the case of Tony Blair and argues that he was very successful at this. His party won three full parliamentary terms in a row, a feat not achieved by any other Labour leadership clique. Moreover, it significantly altered the methods by which the party fought elections, reforms that remain in place to this day.
Similar points might be made about the criterion of governing competence. Not only did Blair and his colleagues re-establish Labour’s reputation in this area, but some of the policy changes put in place to fulfil this objective (particularly Bank of England independence) now have a lasting legacy.
Although Blair failed to devise a consistent and compelling narrative for New Labour, which had a significant impact on the climate of British politics, the party did win the political argument on important issues, such as greater expenditure on public services.
Party management was arguably Blair’s least strong suit in the sense that he was unable to prevent the splits between leader and rank and file that had plagued his successors. But overall, Blair’s leadership deserves a very high place in any future league table of British prime ministers.
It has to be said that a Blair return is some way off. Ed Miliband has built up a lead in the polls and the questions about his leadership have retreated. If he loses the next general election then he may not survive as party leader and we should expect a leadership contest, but there will be plenty of younger leadership candidates in the frame if that happens. Unfortunately for Blair one poll has suggested that Labour support would drop (except in the South-East) if he was to become leader again.
So was Tony Blair a great Prime Minister? Here are some of his most famous moments, to help you decide.
Barack Obama has been re-elected as President of the United States. Thankfully, there is a winner with a significant margin meaning that there is not a repeat of 2000. Twelve years ago the result was decided by the US Supreme Court after the controversy over ‘hanging chads’ and ‘butterfly ballots’ in Florida.
However, had the election been tighter, would this have been the case?
What is clear is that problems remain with the administration of elections in the US. Across the country, lengthy queues formed at polling stations. An election official from the Marion County Election Board, Indianapolis, Indiana tweeted a picture (below) demonstrating the length of queues forming at one polling station. Did voters patiently wait or vote, or did the queue deter them? ‘[W]e did lose a few who didn’t want to wait’, admitted the election official.
|Queues form in Indianapolis, IN. Source: Marion County (IN) Election Board|
|Voter ID signs in PA|
Another tactic is deliberately under-funding election boards. The Marion County Election Board, referred to above, complained that they wanted more poll sites, but ‘Republicans had vetoed our resolution for more at each election since 2010’ (sic). In Florida 2000, it was areas dominated by Democrat voters that saw the greatest queues form – areas which suffered from under-funding. Republican politicians held the purse-strings.
Problems are not always caused deliberately. They can stem from failures of electoral management. Poor planning on behalf of electoral officials and a lack of training can lead to problems for the voters. Some polling stations, including some in Ohio, ran out of ballot papers. In Miami-Dade County, host to the problems in 2000, scanning machines broke down leaving voters to queue for hours. Further problems will problem emerge over the coming weeks.
There is an urgent need to understand how failures of electoral management can be avoided (or reduced). They are not the reserve of newly democratising countries or electoral autocracies such as Russia. They also take place in the US, and, as scenes from the 2010 general election demonstrated, the UK. The UK Electoral Commission has developed some strategies for improving election administration which my research has suggested has had some positive effects. However, academics and policy makers should work together to find ways to improve elections. Efforts to suppress legitimate voters require rigorous scrutiny from the media and public.
Thankfully, the 2012 election appears to have been decided by the voters, not the administration of votes. But things could have been very different.