Category Archives: Politics

A hung parliament

In recent months the main pollsters have recorded a reduction in the Conservative Party’s lead ahead of the general election. As a result, most observers are predicting a hung parliament. But what exactly does this mean?

A hung parliament occurs when each of the parties fails to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons. In simple terms, a hung parliament will occur if the Labour Party lose 24 seats and the Conservatives fail to gain 116 seats.

When a hung parliament occurs in the UK, the Party with the most votes will usually be asked by the Queen to try and form a government. At this point, they have two options.

Coalition government

A coalition government is formed when the largest party (that with the most votes) forges an alliance with another to achieve an overall majority. They can engage in a formal coalition by granting a certain number of cabinet positions to members of other parties, usually proportional to that of votes won by that party.

Coalition governments are not uncommon. Countries such as New Zealand, Isreal, Switzerland and Germany all have extensive experience in coalition rule. The devolved powers in both Scotland and Wales have also been successfully run by coalitions in recent years.

In many ways, coalitions encourage parties to co-operate and their bipartisan cabinets are argued to more fairly reflect the feelings of the electorate.

However, the demand for co-operation is not always viewed as a positive. Coalitions can be prone to infighting as parties with distinctly different ideologies battle for influence. Sometimes the constant level of compromise and discussions leads to a slowing of the legislative process. On the other hand the smaller party may be ignored, leading to potential factions.

Minority government

The largest party may also try and form a government without making any alliances or policy concessions to smaller parties. Instead, they attempt to win support from other parties on each individual bill as and when it reaches the floor of the house.

Mike Thomas from pressure group Charter 2010 thinks it would be a mistake for the largest party after the next election to try and rule in a minority government.

He told me: “A coalition would be more stable than a minority government. An issue by issue basis doesn’t really work if you’re after stability and continuity.”

In fact, minority governments are inherently less stable than formal coalitions. The opposition’s majority can easily bring down the government and force another election by way of a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister.

Further election

Whatever the resulting government of a hung parliament, it is always likely that another election will be imminent. In systems where hung parliament’s are rare, the ruling party will usually call an election as soon as it feels it is able to win an overall majority.

This was the case the last time the UK had a hung parliament in 1974. Then, a minority government led by Harold Wilson called an election after just eight months. They won the election with a majority of only three.

What’s going to happen in the UK?

Despite a hung parliament being a real possibility, Mike Thomas thinks political parties are unlikely to talk publically about it before the general election.

“Although the parties are talking internally, none of them are likely to talk aloud because it’s in their nature to believe and think they can win the next election. They don’t want to be seen as consigning themselves to a hung parliament already.”

If a hung parliament were to occur, the balance of power is likely to be held by the Liberal Democrats. Their leader Nick Clegg has been mooted as saying that his party are not interested in cabinet jobs and would prefer policy concessions.

Clegg has set out four key themes upon which his party will fight the election. These themes have been dubbed the ‘Lib Dem shopping list’, indicating that the Party will support a coalition if it their policies on these key areas are included in a mandate.

The fact that the Liberal Democrats have signalled their intent to negotiate suggests that, in the event of a hung parliament, we are more likely to have a coalition government than a minority one. This will however depend on potentially fragile negotiations and the potential for another election later in the year is always present.

By Nick Higgins


Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Politicians and journalists: society’s most hated?

The Iraqi journalist made famous for throwing his shoes at George W. Bush when he was President has suffered an identical attack whilst speaking at an event in Paris.

Indeed the way that Muntadar al-Zaidi ducked down to his left as the shoe came directly for his head bore a remarkable resemblance to Bush’s own dodge in 2008.

Eggs, shoes… what next?

This particular story struck me as being quite comical and of increased relevance given my last post was about people throwing eggs at a politician. It seems the world has gone mad with throwing things, and random things at that.

First eggs, then shoes, then eggs again. Now shoes…again! I find myself asking what next? A sock? A cabbage? Or maybe just more shoes… and eggs.

Verbal attack is one thing, journalists verbally attack politicians, politicians verbally attack journalists, and the public verbally attack both. It’s an age-old pattern. However, it is certainly a worrying development that these two professions, or as I like to call them: ‘society’s most hated’ are beginning to come under physical attack from both the public and one another.

I can only hope that this most recent episode of shoe throwing at journalists does not take off in the same way throwing eggs at politicians seems to have done. Otherwise it might be necessary to rethink my career choice, before I get a boot to the face.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Warsi and the egg men

Images of John Prescott being pelted with an egg whilst campaigning in Rhys, North Wales in 2001 resonated true this evening when I saw a video of Tory Peer, Baroness Warsi suffering the same, humiliating attack.

Warsi was on a ‘walkabout’ in Luton when some protesters appeared and threw eggs at her. What I thought was particularly interesting was the Baroness’ response. Instead of trying to get indoors and away from the angry protesters as you might expect, Warsi attempted to reason with them. This was in stark contrast to Prescott’s ‘Rocky’ impersonation where he landed a clean punch to the offender’s chin before wrestling him to the ground as if he had stolen his last piece of cake.

Although the Tory Peer appeared angered by this most recent attack, she kept her cool remarkably well. Warsi, who was named Britain’s most influential Muslim woman in 2009 could be heard saying to one of her minders “I think we should actually deal with it”. The Baroness did her best to answer the questions of the egg throwers but, rather predictably, they did not afford her the same patience as she gave them.

Baroness Warsi’s calm response to this confrontation is a fascinating demonstration of British democracy. Being an unelected member of the House of Lords Warsi is not directly accountable to the public, yet she put herself in the firing line to argue her point and submit herself to further abuse from the ‘egg men’. Yes it would have been funny to see her flailing fists towards the protesters as Prescott so famously did but, as it was, her reaction was both intriguing and reassuring.

By Nick Higgins

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Image is important…

There have recently been calls for a televised debate between the leaders of the three main political parties in the UK ahead of the next general election.

Gordon Brown (Labour), David Cameron (Conservative) and Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) have all agreed, in principle to the debate and Sky News have been running an online petition to gain support from the public and cement it in history.

The televised debate has been a feature of American politics for a number of years. I remember studying Politics at school and discussing Nixon v Kennedy in the first of four televised debates during their presidential campaigns of 1960.

Nixon had recently been discharged from hospital and campaigned right up until the first debate. He also refused television makeup. Kennedy on the other hand had rested. He was tanned, clean-shaven and well prepared. Nixon looked lost, pale, under-weight and was bearing stubble.

The vast majority of the 80 million television viewers thought Kennedy had won the debate. Even with television footage in black and white, his photogenic appeal is widely held as the explanation why. This explanation is reinforced when we consider listeners on radio throughout the U.S regarded Nixon as the winner.

‘Politics in a new light’

Whatever happens the debate in the UK can be seen as a modernisation of democracy and a necessary step towards more transparent politics in the UK. After the expenses scandal and the failure to present a coherent strategy on Afghanistan, it is up to all three leaders to rest and tan (as it were). The British public needs to be reintroduced to politics in a new light and the leader’s debate is a useful opportunity to do so.

This opportunity should be used not necessarily to attack others, nor persistently dig up manifesto promises which have been fulfilled in times gone by, or what I like to call, ‘recalling the glory years’. Nor should it be used to complain about manifesto promises which the government have failed to turn into legislation.

The leaders need to sew together reputations as clean, honest and committed personalities who have a clear outline for the methods they will use to regain public support and bring politics closer to its people.

In my eyes that is what the general election is all about. It is about bringing politics closer to the people it has alienated. It is about parties fighting for votes from a pool of people who might now abstain. It is about increasing the importance of transparency in UK Politics. It is about committing to reforming the pay structure and perks of MP’s and it is about tabling a coherent, visible strategy for Afghanistan, rather than just echoing Barack Obama every three weeks.

The question of image

Bearing all of this in mind, we can return to the question of whether or not image will determine the winner of the debate as it did so famously for Kennedy during the 1960 Presidential election. Fifty years on it seems that image is more important than ever before. With not only colour, but now high-definition television, the leaders will have to be weary of the problems encountered by Nixon in 1960.

The viewers will be able to measure the depth of individual creases and crows feet on the leader’s face.  If they fail notice it themselves, rest assured it will be printed on tabloid front pages with in-depth analysis detailing ‘the terrain of a modern politician’s face’. In many ways it is an unfortunate aspect of being an important player in politics today, something you must accept is that you will look 60 when you are actually 40 years old.

Having detailed what I think needs to be the focus of the leaders debate and the general election as being based around personable characteristics, it follows that image may well play a large part in determining the outcome. People’s images can create a subconscious confidence in what comes out of their mouth.

In my opinion, any leader looking tired and dishevelled on the night of the debate will find it hard to portray a rejuvenated character who is ready and willing to head up a government for the next four or five years. A leader looking rested, tanned, clean-shaven and youthful may benefit from the ‘Kennedy effect’, presenting the public with a confidence and a readiness which will translate into votes.

By Nick Higgins

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Which Episode Were You Watching?

Nick Griffin

Picture courtesy of Samantha Viner

In response to Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time last Thursday, The Daily Telegraph has today published an opinion poll run by ‘YouGov’ which suggests that one in five people surveyed would ‘seriously consider’ voting for the British National Party. One in five!

I spent Thursday night watching Jack Straw and the others queue up to have a pop at Mr Griffin on a grainy television in a friend’s room. Whilst around the country over eight million more people tuned in to Question Time to watch ‘Nick’ respond to all the burning questions they have always wanted to ask him.

“Lynch mob”

There has been an interesting argument being banded around campus that ‘Nick’ was not given a fair chance to clear up important facts and explain his policies. It was clear that every time he began stuttering an answer to a question, another panel member would interrupt and argue over him to the point where the studio audience would clap and whoop, without actually giving the man a chance to speak.

The most shocking aspect of this observation is that even the experienced and usually reserved David Dimbleby could not resist jumping on the bandwagon and facilitating further opportunities for Griffin to be targeted. At one point, in an attempt to regain order he said, “if you all attack on different fronts we won’t get anywhere.”

Griffin has since likened the show’s panellists and audience to a “lynch mob” and has asked to be invited back for a second chance.

Discussing whether or not the show was a “lynch mob” or biased or whatever else is not important for now. Of far more importance to me are the figures published in the Telegraph today.

I supported the BBC’s decision to allow Nick Griffin to express his views, in the name of democracy. In truth I thought there was no debate to be had on the issue, and that there was no reason why he should not appear on the show to allow everyone to scrutinize his policies and make up their own mind. After all these are values upon which this country is built. The only problem with this is that I was naïve enough to think everyone was like me and that everyone would see Griffin’s ludicrous policies, vulgar attitude, poor eloquence and his ultimate lack of charisma.

BNP has gained huge publicity

When the programme ended, the consensus among our contingent in the darkened room was that watching Nick Griffin on Question Time was a bit like watching a goldfish get shot in a bucket. There was no way out for him, no escape from the onslaught.

As we sat and debated the outcomes of the show the last thing on any of our minds was that the BNP would gain support from it. We also all agreed that Nick Griffin would not be invited back onto Question Time for at least a couple of years.

These agreements were made in the knowledge that we would not need to discuss them again in the morning. They were made with such conviction that we swiftly moved on to debating other things. So you can imagine my amazement when reading today that 22% of people would ‘seriously consider’ voting BNP and that Nick Griffin has asked to come back on the panel in the near future.

What I think has happened is that I was either watching a different programme to these ‘22% of people’, or I simply got the wrong end of the stick. I thought I saw Nick Griffin cop a political beating of unimaginable magnitude, yet he and the BNP seem to have come away with enormous publicity, increasing support and the possible opportunity to come back for more.

I would like to be able to explain how this has happened. The truth is I am baffled. One thing I will say is that there is a huge void between telling an opinion poll that you ‘seriously consider’ voting for someone, and actually voting for them on Election Day. I think the voting public know that opinion polls do not elect politicians whereas the general elections really count.


Filed under Politics

The BNP Protest in Pictures

Yesterday I went along to the protests against Nick Griffin and the British National Party’s appearance on Question Time. I was armed with a swish camera and got involved with the professional photojournalists. You know, the sort that push you over if you are stealing their ‘shots’.
I managed to get involved in a few scrums and got some quite good photos for a first timer. So, in addition to my blog post on the protests, I thought i’d put up some of the photos to tell the story of the protests. Its mainly for people who can’t read, or are too lazy to read. Feel free to comment.
Demonstrators gathered outside BBC Television Centre

Demonstrators gathered outside BBC Television Centre

Police had to hold protesters and press back from the gates on many occasions

Police had to hold protesters and press back from the gates on many occasions

Protesters chanted and blocked the road outside Wood Lane tube station for many hours

Protesters chanted and blocked the road outside Wood Lane tube station for many hours

Protesters squared up to police as they marched down the road

Protesters squared up to police as they marched down the road

One protester outside the Television Centre

One protester outside the Television Centre

The protests became heated when flares were set off

The protests became heated when flares were set off

Protesters marching in the road

Protesters marching in the road


The protests eventually calmed down once the flares had been extinguished

The protests eventually calmed down once the flares had been extinguished

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics