Pippa Norris's Weblog

Lack of women at Westminster

Now that the dust has settled after the May 2010 general election, and the outcome for women is clear, there are many reasons for disappointment.

Four women sit in the new cabinet (14%), led by Theresa May as Home Secretary, while Caroline Spelman is the new environment secretary, Cheryl Gillan is the Welsh secretary, and Baroness Warsi is minister without portfolio. The British cabinet lags far behind many European countries; Spain has 53% women in its Cabinet, while Germany has 37% and France 33%.

Overall 142 female MPs were elected to Westminster (21.8%) – more than one in five of the total members in the House of Commons. This was another steady increase, up from 128 or 19.8% of all members in 2005 – but only a modest gain. According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union figures, after the election Britain ranks 55^th worldwide in the proportion of women in the lower house of parliament, lagging far behind the familiar litany of global leaders such as Sweden, Norway and Finland, as well as European democracies such as Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands. Despite the gains in numbers at Westminster, in fact Britain's international ranking slipped 10 places since 2005, because other countries – including many newer democracies – are advancing at a faster pace.

Labour continues to have the best record of the major parties, now with 81 women MPs (almost one third or 31%). The Conservatives made substantial seat gains, including those contested by women candidates, but still elected only 48 women MPs (15.7%). Meanwhile, despite all the egalitarian rhetoric, the Liberal Democrats actually managed to fall back to just 7 female MPs (12%), and they haven't nominated any for their five Cabinet posts.

	Conservative		Labour		Liberal Democrat		Total in all parties (*)
	PPC	MPs	PPC	MPs	PPC	MPs	N. of all MPs	% of all MPs
1979	31	13	52	11	52	0	19	3.0
1983	40	13	78	10	75	0	23	3.5
1987	46	17	92	21	106	2	41	6.3
1992	63	20	138	37	143	2	60	9.2
1997	69	13	157	101	140	3	120	18.2
2001	92	14	146	94	135	5	118	17.9
2005	118	17	166	97	142	10	128	19.8
2010	149	48	191	81	134	7	142 (*)	21.8

(*) Including all other UK parties (in 2010, the Greens, SNP, SF, SDLP, Alliance and Independent each elected one women MP.)

In a sense, this is all water under the bridge. But there are still important issues which need to be addressed.

In particular, right now only two candidates have declared themselves for the Labour party leadership contest – the bros David and Ed Miliband. Both have considerable potential as the next generation of rising Labour leaders. But where are the women? Harriet Harman, the Deputy leader of the Labour party, would have been an obvious contender, but she has quite firmly refused to stand. Other names which have been mooted in this context include Tessa Jowell, Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood), and Emily Thornberry (Islington South & Finsbury).

Ed Miliband, who is a personable candidate but without deep experience of high office, stood in part due to a grassroots web campaign among supporters.

If you could encourage any of the Labour women MPs to stand in the leadership contest, who would this be??

 

The electoral politics of the Liberal-Conservative Coalition Government

Coalition politics is a familiar process in most European countries. There are no guarantees of the final results, as polling day can bring many unexpected outcomes, sometimes generating month-long negotiations requiring grand coalitions of parties drawn from across the political spectrum in order to cobble together a government. Nevertheless during the election campaign, European parties often signal their willingness to collaborate with potential coalition partners, and which parties are outside this process, providing voters with clues about the eventual outcome.

In the United Kingdom, however, the British government coalition joining the fate of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties, announced yesterday in the Rose Garden of No 10, seems to have been utterly serendipitous for all concerned, even to commentators, pundits and the party leaders involved at the heart of this process. The outcome, the first governing coalition in Britain since the end of World War II, and the first ever Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition in history, was unexpected despite the long series of public opinion polls predicting a hung parliament. It was agreed by the party leaders only during the five days of negotiations following the election, after it became apparent that the Conservatives were the largest party at Westminster but without an overall parliamentary majority.

Why the surprise?

In terms of ideological and policy positions, for a decade the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party have always been closer; indeed in the 2001 and 2005 elections, the Comparative Manifesto Project estimated that the Liberal Democrat manifesto was more progressive and slightly to the left of the Labour party platform, especially on issues of taxation and proposed levels of social welfare spending. By contrast, although the Conservatives have moved closer to the center of the British political spectrum under the leadership of David Cameron, nevertheless they remained further to the right of their other main rivals. And on certain issues, notably Europe, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives remain miles apart.

But how are the parties placed by voters? Did the coalition, and the decision by Nick Clegg to join with the Conservatives rather than Labour, reflect the outcome that the British public wanted? During election night, Paddy Ashdown famously said that the people have spoken, but we still don't know what they have said. One problem was that the main exit polls, commissioned by all the major media organizations, failed to ask any questions beyond voting. So the coalition has generated a mountain of speculations offered by all sides but no systematic evidence. Those reading the tea-leaves often claimed that the British public 'wanted' a hung parliament but, in fact, this cannot be deduced from the outcome. Each citizen cast a particular vote in their specific constituency, but the final outcome was the collective result of millions of independent decisions.

One way we can throw light on this question is to turn to the 2010 British Election Study (BES) which has just been released. The BES data provides some revealing clues about what the electorate actually preferred. And in particular the results tell us something important about the second choice of Liberal Democrat voters. If the decision about entering a coalition with either Labour or the Conservatives were in the hands of Liberal Democrat voters, what would they have wanted?

The table below, drawn from the BES campaign panel survey among 1,355 respondents, reports how people voted on May 6^th and also reveals their second choice preference among those who voted but who really preferred another party. Among those in this group who cast a ballot for the Liberal Democrats, only 12% opted for the Conservative party as their second choice preference. By contrast, almost half the Liberal Democrat voters (48%) chose Labour as their second preference. Likewise, the Liberal Democrats were the 2^nd choice preference of four out of ten Labour voters.

In other words, it is not simply that the Labour and the Liberal Democrats parties are far closer in their manifesto policies and ideological values, but Liberal Democrat and Labour voters also recognized the close affinity in their willingness to switch votes. The Conservative party was in a far different position, where UKIP (to the right of the party) were their largest 2^nd choice party.

Thus the new coalition governing British politics has clearly shaken up the old pattern of British party politics. Whether the decision of the leaders will cause Liberal Democrat voters to move gradually closer towards the Conservatives in their electoral sympathies, or whether instead the Liberal Democratic party will eventually be punished by their supporters for entering this alliance, remains a fascinating question which only time will tell.

	How people voted on May 6th 2010
Among those who preferred another party	Conservative voter	Labour voter	Lib-Dem voter
Con 2nd choice	13	2	12
Lab 2nd choice	4	22	48
Lib-Dem 2nd choice	21	43	15
SNP 2nd choice	1	4	3
PC 2nd choice	0	2	1
UKIP 2nd choice	41	8	4
BNP 2nd choice	10	6	1
Green 2nd choice	2	9	11
Other 2nd choice	10	6	6
	100	100	100

Source: British Election Study 2010 Campaign Panel. F/w YouGov. N. 1,355

A watershed break in UK politics and prospects for electoral reform

It is now official; after the May 6^th 2010 general election, and five days of detailed negotiations, the UK now has a Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition government. The key aspects of the deal include the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, as Deputy Prime Minister, four more Liberal Democrat MPs with Ministerial posts in the new Cabinet, and broad agreement on a range of policy areas. This is the first coalition government in Britain in sixty-five years.

Does this represent a historic water-shed transformation of the British political system? Clearly the sign of two leaders standing shoulder-to-shoulder at the first press conference in the No 10 Rose Garden symbolizes a change in how things are usually done in British government. The leadership love-fest all looks very kumbaya. Skeptics point out, however, that there are serious challenges facing the new arrangement, not least the difficulties facing the British economy, with record levels of unemployment and a massive deficit which needs addressing. In foreign policy, there is Afghanistan. The parties are unexpected bedfellows, not least because the Lib Dems are far more progressive than the Labour party, and on numerous issues their election platform was diametrically opposed to Conservative policies, not least on the EU. It is unclear whether the coalition can last, even for the five years of government.

But will the new politics be a temporary arrangement, a short-term marriage of convenience arising unexpectedly from the close election result, or a longer-term decisive break with one-party majoritarian government?

The key issue determining this issue will be the pledge on electoral reform. The agreement between the parties is a pledge for a referendum on the Alternative Vote, where the MPs will be free to campaign for or against this issue. Now the real tragedy here is that the referendum should have been called for whether there should be any electoral reform. Period. As in New Zealand. Deciding in advance that there can only be one system on the table for debate will divide the reform camp, will limit the options which should be under debate, and which, if passed, will still not produce a more proportional electoral system. The fact is that the Alternative Vote is a majoritarian system; it maintains single member districts and requires any candidate to achieve a majority of votes to be elected. Voters express preferential votes, ranking parties in priority. If no candidates achieve 50% of the vote in the constituency, then the 2^nd choice preferences from the candidate with the smallest share of the vote are redistributed until one candidate does achieve a simple majority. This is equivalent to the 2^nd Ballot or runoff election, but without the need for two successive elections. Will this benefit small parties? Those in the center, such as the Lib Dems, are often the 2^nd choice party for many supporters of the major party. As such the LibDems will probably benefit from 2^nd choice redistributions. BUT they will still discriminate against smaller parties with geographically dispersed support, such as the Greens and the BNP.

It is unclear whether the public would vote 'yes' in favor of abandoning First-Past-the-Post (Single Member Plurality) system. The polls cannot be trusted since British public opinion currently remains soft on this issue and the answers are highly dependent upon the way that the question is framed. But the public has become more familiar with many other types of electoral system in the UK – whether the AMS system in Scotland and Wales, PR list in European elections, and other systems used in Northern Ireland and London contests. There may be enough of a plurality to favor getting rid of the transparent unfairness of the old system. Does this mean that the British public would favor AV? That is far less clear indeed. Breaking up the referendum question into two (do we want to change? If so, which system do you favor) would have been far wiser.

Nevertheless if passed – and this is a big if – AV would institutionalize coalition power-sharing agreements at Westminster. We would be back to the form of politics which was more characteristic of the inter-war era. Its been a long time coming. The British electorate has been shifting away from two party politics since the early 1970s. Despite this, British institutions and FPTP have frozen the old Labour and Conservative oligarchy in place at Westminster for decades. Now, at last, it appears as though party politics at Westminster may -- at last -- be catching up with the public.

UK British general election 6th May 2010: Summary of results

UK General Election 6^th May 2010

 

 

 

The following provides a brief summary of the results of the UK general election held on 6th May 2010. Access to the 2010 constituency results data in Excel and PASW/SPSS formats is now available for downloading from my website wwwpippanorris.com under 'data'.

 

Contents

 

Table 1: UK scoreboard    2

Table 2: % Share of the popular vote (UK)    3

Figure 1: % Share of the popular vote (UK)    4

Table 3: % Share of seats (UK)    5

Figure 2: % Share of seats (UK) 1900-2010    6

Figure 3: Government Votes: Seats Ratio 1945-2010    7

Table 4: Government overall majority, 1900-2010    8

Figure 4: UK Electoral Turnout 1832-2010    9

Figure 5: Electoral system effects    10

Figure 6: May 6^th 2010 UK Election map    11

 

 

Table 1: UK scoreboard

Party	Seats	Gain	Loss	Net	Votes	%	+/-%
Conservative	306	100	3	+97	10,706,647	36.1	+3.8
Labour	258	3	94	-91	8,604,358	29.0	-6.2
Liberal Democrat	57	8	13	-5	6,827,938	23.0	+1.0
Democratic Unionist Party	8	0	1	-1	168,216	0.6	-0.3
Scottish National Party	6	0	0	0	491,386	1.7	+0.1
Sinn Fein	5	0	0	0	171,942	0.6	-0.1
Plaid Cymru	3	1	0	+1	165,394	0.6	-0.1
Social Democratic & Labour Party	3	0	0	0	110,970	0.4	-0.1
Green	1	1	0	+1	285,616	1.0	-0.1
Alliance Party	1	1	0	+1	42,762	0.1	+0.0
UK Independence Party	0	0	0	0	917,832	3.1	+0.9
British National Party	0	0	0	0	563,743	1.9	+1.2
Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force	0	0	1	-1	102,361	0.3	-0.1
English Democrats	0	0	0	0	64,826	0.2	+0.2
Respect-Unity Coalition	0	0	1	-1	33,251	0.1	-0.1
Traditional Unionist Voice	0	0	0	0	26,300	0.1
Christian Party	0	0	0	0	18,623	0.1
Independent Community and Health Concern	0	0	1	-1	16,150	0.1	+0.0
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition	0	0	0	0	12,275	0.0
Scottish Socialist Party	0	0	0	0	3,157	0.0	-0.1
Others	1	1	1	0	319,891	1.1	0.0
Turnout					29,653,638	65.1	4.0

Note: After 649 of 650 seats declared.

Source: news.BBC.co.uk

 

Table 2: % Share of the popular vote (UK)

	Con	Lab	LD	Other
1900	50.3	1.3	45.0	2.5
1906	43.4	4.8	49.4
1910	46.8	7.0	43.5
1910	46.6	6.4	44.2
1918	38.7	20.8	25.6
1922	38.5	29.7	28.8
1923	38.0	30.7	29.7
1924	46.8	33.3	17.8
1929	38.1	37.1	23.5
1931	60.7	30.9	7.0
1935	53.3	38.0	6.7
1945	39.6	48.0	9.0	2.6
1950	43.4	46.1	9.1	1.0
1951	48.0	48.8	2.6	0.3
1955	49.7	46.4	2.7	0.7
1959	49.4	43.8	5.9	0.7
1964	43.4	44.1	11.2	0.9
1966	41.9	48.0	8.6	1.3
1970	46.4	43.1	7.5	2.3
1974	37.9	37.2	19.3	3.5
1974	35.8	39.2	18.3	4.4
1979	43.9	36.9	13.8	3.3
1983	42.4	27.6	25.4	2.2
1987	42.3	30.8	22.5	2.2
1992	41.9	34.4	17.8	3.7
1997	30.7	43.3	16.8	7.1
2001	31.7	40.7	18.3	9.3
2005	32.3	35.2	22.0	10.5
2010	36.1	29.0	23.0	11.9
Change 2005-10	+3.8	-6.2	+1.0	+1.4

Source: Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher. 2000. British Electoral Facts 1832-1999 Ashgate; updated

Figure 1: % Share of the popular vote (UK)

Source: Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher. 2000. British Electoral Facts 1832-1999 Ashgate; updated.

Table 3: % Share of seats (UK)

	Con	Lab	LD	Other	Total
1900	402	2	183	83	670
1906	156	29	399	86	670
1910	272	40	274	84	670
1910	271	42	272	85	670
1918	382	57	163	105	707
1922	344	142	115	14	615
1923	258	191	158	8	615
1924	412	151	40	12	615
1929	260	287	59	9	615
1931	522	52	36	5	615
1935	429	154	21	11	615
1945	210	393	12	25	640
1950	298	315	9	3	625
1951	321	295	6	3	625
1955	345	277	6	2	630
1959	365	258	6	1	630
1964	304	317	9	0	630
1966	253	364	12	1	630
1970	330	288	6	6	630
1974	297	301	14	23	635
1974	277	319	13	26	635
1979	339	269	11	16	635
1983	397	209	23	21	650
1987	376	229	22	23	650
1992	336	271	20	24	651
1997	165	418	46	30	659
2001	166	412	52	29	659
2005	197	355	62	32	646
2010	306	258	57	28	649
Change	97	-91	-5	-4

Source: Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher. 2000. British Electoral Facts 1832-1999 Ashgate; updated.

 

Figure 2: % Share of seats (UK) 1900-2010

 

 

Source: Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher. 2000. British Electoral Facts 1832-1999 Ashgate; updated.

 

Figure 3: Government Votes: Seats Ratio 1945-2010

 

 

Note: Calculated by % votes/% seats for the governing party. 2010 is estimated based on the assumption of a Conservative government

Table 4: Government overall majority, 1900-2010

	Overall Maj	Govnt
1900	135	Con	Salisbury/Balfour
1906	129	Lib	Campbell Bannerman
1910		None	Asquith
1910		None	Asquith
1918	283	Coalition	Lloyd George
1922	74	Con	Bonar Law
1923		None	Baldwin
1924	210	Con	MacDonald
1929		None	MacDonald
1931	492	Nat	MacDonald
1935	242	Nat	Baldwin/Chamberlain/Churchill
1945	147	Lab	Attlee
1950	6	Lab	Attlee
1951	16	Con	Churchill
1955	59	Con	Eden/Macmillan
1959	99	Con	Macmillan/Douglas-Home
1964	5	Lab	Wilson
1966	97	Lab	Wilson
1970	31	Con	Heath
1974	0	Lab	Wilson
1974	4	Lab	Wilson/Callaghan
1979	44	Con	Thatcher
1983	144	Con	Thatcher
1987	101	Con	Thatcher
1992	21	Con	Major
1997	178	Lab	Blair
2001	167	Lab	Blair
2005	66	Lab	Blair/Brown
2010		None	Cameron?

 

Source: Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher. 2000. British Electoral Facts 1832-1999 Ashgate; updated.

Figure 4: UK Electoral Turnout 1832-2010

Source: Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher. 2000. British Electoral Facts 1832-1999 Ashgate; updated.

 

Figure 5: Electoral system effects

 

	Con	Lab	LD	Other
FPTP	306	258	57	28
STV	246	207	162	35
AV	281	262	79	28
PR List	234	188	150	78

 

Note: Estimated number of seats seats under the 6^th May 2010 share of vote, assuming no change in the distribution of votes and no legal electoral threshold.

Source: Estimates for AV and STV (with 3-5 MPs). Electoral Reform Society. May 10^th 2010. "STV & the parliament that might have been.."

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/news.php?ex=0&nid=469

Figure 6: May 6^th 2010 UK Election map