The Future Place Blog

Thoughts about the LibDems in the UK

Apologies to those readers from outside the UK, and those with little interest in politics, but I feel the need to speak on a non-MR topic. I have been a member of the LibDems (via the Liberals) since 1976, an elected Councillor since 1983, and have stood as a parliamentary candidate for the LibDems three times – so I feel I have a significant attachment to the LibDems.

The key issue for the LibDems is that we need to recognise that the breaking of the pledge on tuition fees was a much bigger issue than the traditional concerns about politicians breaking promises. The signing of a pledge to oppose higher tuition fees for students attracted support because it was more than a promise, LibDem candidates, including the leader Nick Clegg, were pictured signing it. After the election, about half of the LibDem MPs (28 of them, see the list here) voted with the Tories to bring in a 200% increase in student fees. Those 28 MPs made themselves liars. I do not say they are liars, I do not say they were lying when they signed the pledges, but by choosing to vote for the increase they chose to make themselves liars and they tarred the party with the same brush.

The breaking of a pledge is a major issue for a democracy. How can voters decide which party to vote, or which candidate to vote for, if they cannot believe even the most emphatic promise, a written pledge signed in public? The damage Nick Clegg and the other 27 LibDem MPs who voted for the increase have done is not just to the LibDem Party (although that damage is pretty severe) it is the whole democratic process. There is little point having representative democracy if the voters know they can’t believe anything the candidates tell them.

I have concerns about some of the policies the LibDems are following in Government (some of the cuts, the withdrawal of EMA, and the attacks on the NHS), but that is to be expected. There has never been a time when I agreed with everything the leadership of my party did and said, but tackling the pledge issue is fundamental to future of the party and will have an influence on politics in general.

BTW, I do accept that the cuts are caused by Labour almost bankrupting the country and I am aware that Labour would have made very similar cuts. Once Labour refused to go into coalition I think there was no choice, for the country, for the LibDems to make and alliance with the Tories. I think there is more that we could have done to protect our left of centre position and that must be addressed going forward, but that is a lesser issue, compared with the breaking of the pledge.

I think the only way that trust can start to be restored in the LibDems is for all 28 LibDem MPs who voted for the increase to be de-selected by their local parties, and for the wider LibDem party to make it clear that they will not vote for any of the 28 for any party office. Amongst the 28 there are some people I have respected for years, and perhaps they were too easily led, but it would be wrong to make excuses for any of them.

The road back for the LibDems will be a long road, but I believe it should start by say sorry to the people who rightfully feel betrayed and deceived, and it should be matched by the sacking of the 28.

 

Will the pressure on BP lead to justice for all?

There is enormous pressure on BP to pay full compensation for the environmental and economic devastation being caused in and around the Gulf of Mexico by its oil spill, and of course to make whatever amends it can for the eleven lives that were lost, and the seventeen who were injured, when the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded. 

This is both right and fair.

However, wouldn’t it be a great outcome if as a result of this disaster the world grew up in terms of making businesses pay their dues when things go wrong. One particular example I have in mind is Bhopal disaster caused when Union Carbide’s factory in Bhopal, India exploded. Numbers vary, in terms of how many died at the time and since, but figures of 15,000 are commonly quoted. The explosion happened in 1984, but the land is still polluted, the groundwater is polluted, and babies are being born deformed, and people are still dying. There has been no full compensation in Bhopal, and there is still a need for Union Carbide and its parent Dow Chemicals to take full responsibility and to put right the environment and pay compensation to all those materially impacted by their explosion.

In India the court case looking into the deaths has just concluded and is widely seen as a whitewash. Seven former employees have been found guilty of causing death by negligence and sentenced to two years in jail and fines of about $2000.

Dow Chemicals, who bought Union Carbide in 2001, $10.3 billion, which means Union Carbide’s debts should now be Dow Chemicals debts. Dow Chemicals position is that the $470 million paid in compensation has fully met the obligations of the company. This is clearly outrageous.

So, let’s raise our voices on behalf of the people and the environment in the Gulf of Mexico, but let’s also demand justice for people less able to defend themselves in courts, starting with justice for the people of Bhopal.

If you use Facebook and would like to add your voice to others, you can join a page calling for justice here.

Victory for democracy in UK

British politics are very tribal, with MPs voting for their party almost irrespective of how barmy the official line is. Today that hegemony of the small minds was smashed asunder by the House of Commons voting for the right thing, in response to a motion about the Gurkhas.

The BBC report here gives the background, and links to plenty more information. But the basic story is that the Gurkhas are Nepalese soldiers who have put their life on the line for the British and who have been let down by a succession of Government (from all parties). The vote called for their case to be dealt with fairly.

Today the opposition voted against the Government, no surprise there. What was a pleasant surprise was that so many Government MPs abstained, and even more surprising 27 honourable Labour MPs voted against their party. With all the bad press that UK MPs have been getting recently (e.g. second homes, sleazy blogs, downloading porn etc) it is refreshing to see some politicians are willing to do what is right. One of the 27 Labour MPs even had to resign his position with the Government in order to be able to vote against the Government, that should be commended.

p.s.
Quick declaration of interest, I am a member of one of the other parties, and would therefore not be a supporter of the Labour Government nor neutral.

56% of US favour stem cell research

56%, the proportion of US citizens who believe that research into lives is more important that saying no to stem cell research, according to the Pew Research Center. These figures have been pretty constant since 2004, and reflect most age ranges, though not the 65%+ age group. Those most opposed to stem cell research were Conservative Republicans (38% in favour), those who did not graduate high school (41%), those over 65 years old (41%), and Evangenlical Protestants (44%).

Re-elected to my Local Council

Thursday was a long and interesting day, as I was standing for re-election to my local Borough Council (Gedling, on the outskirts of Nottingham). I’ve been a Liberal Democrat councillor since 1983 (although during that time the party has morphed from Liberals, through Lib/SDP Alliance and Liberal and Social Democrats, representing the ward of Phoenix.

When I am wearing my politician’s hat I use several techniques which are common to market researchers, but with a different slant. During the campaign period (approximately the two months before polling day), we spend much of our time canvassing. The popular misconception that that we canvass people (either face-to-face or via telephone) in order to try and change people’s minds. Although one occasionally meets a voter with a specific query which might affect their voting, that is not the main role of canvassing.

Canvassing is, basically, data collection. What we want to know is which way are you likely to vote, and to an extent whether you are likely to vote (more on this point later). This information can be used in several ways. Firstly, in the early stages of the campaign we use this information to try and project the result for each ward. Most parties have scarce resources and they want to concentrate their effort on the marginal wards, the ones where they are neither certain to win nor certain to lose. These are the areas which generate the highest return on effort (our ROI).

The next stage of using the information is to target communications depending on people’s views. For example, in my Ward the result 4 years ago (i.e. at the last local election) was that one LibDem (me) and one Labour were elected, with the Conservatives coming a poor third. Therefore, we had two key messages to communicate. To people minded to vote LibDem we wanted to encourage them to actually vote (only about 30%-40% of people vote in local elections), and as part of this we wanted to remind them how close the result was last time, and to remind them of all the good work we have done for the area. For those inclined to support the Conservatives the core message was that is they vote Conservative (a right of centre party), they are, in effect, making it easier for Labour to win (Labour have traditionally been seen as left of centre, and to the left of the LibDems).

The other key element in the process is identifying who is likely to vote. In the UK, after local elections, it is possible to buy a copy of what is called the marked register. This shows the identity of everyone who voted (you can’t tell which way they voted, just that they did vote). Canvassing, therefore, tends to be concentrated on those who either voted at previous elections or who are new to the register (either they have moved, or they have passed their 18^th birthday).

During election day the electioneering process moves into over-drive. Outside each of the polling stations (in my ward there are two polling stations) volunteers ask voters to tell them their polling numbers (about 99% are happy to do this). This numbers are conveyed back to the committee room where the list of everybody who has indicated they will vote LibDem is listed. The list of people who has voted is checked against the list of supporters, and those who have voted are crossed of the list of supporters. At this point other volunteers visit the people on the list of supporters to remind them that today is polling day, and to offer lifts to the polling station.

The final burst of statistical activity occurs at the count. Before the votes are counted they are first verified. Verified means counting the votes inside each ballot box to ensure that they match the number issued. Once the ballots are verified all the papers for a ward are mixed together and counted. However, we politicians are interests in our strength within each ballot box area, not just our strength overall. So, volunteers watch the process and count samples of papers as they are unfolded to make estimates of the support within each box.

Reviewing the process, I am struck the similarities and dissimilarities between the way market researchers and politicians use statistical processes. In the early part of the campaign the politician uses sampling to estimate support. However, the sampling is not normally based on random probability sampling. We modify the population to be those with a history of voting and those new to the register. Our concentration tends to be on switch analysis rather than simple sample predictions, i.e. we use previous records to assess whether things have moved towards us or away from us since the last election.

During the campaign we attempt to identify the entire population of likely supporters, and the entire population of key other groups (e.g. Tory supporters, Greens etc.). During the early part of the account we assess what we think is happening, but with an immediacy that most marketers never face, within minutes or at most a few hours of the statistical process we have either been re-elected or deposed.

And how did the election turn out? I am glad to report that I was re-elected, with an increased share of the vote, with an increased turnout. Did I win because of the polling day operation? I don’t think so. If a result is close then the polling day operation is vital. If the result is reasonably close then the campaign is the key factor. But in most cases it is the work that happens during the previous four years that makes the difference – at least that is my theory, and I have won all 11 local government elections I have stood in since 1983.

Great Source for UK Political Polling

If, like me, you have an interest in political polling in the UK then you will find the UKPollingReport an invaluable resource.