And The Winner Is...

As the dust settles on the battlefield that was the 2010 General Election, it is now possible to identify some big political winners and losers. The election promised to be a bloody encounter, with the aftermath resembling the Battle of Naseby, but for all its pre-match hype the election descended into a bizarre episode of It's a Knockout, where the result is rather inconsequential, but everyone enjoyed the ride. With Sky News' "political heavyweight" Adam Boulton as the over overexcited Stuart Hall, demeaning the contestants at every given opportunity as they attempt to carefully manoeuvre themselves through a political obstacle course.

On the surface it is possible to assert that David Cameron and the Conservative Party won the election, they won more seats and more of the popular vote than their rivals. However, given the unpopularity of the incumbent Prime Minister and government, the state of the economy, unemployment and the spectre of the Iraq War, this Tory victory almost feels like a defeat. The result - an unsatisfactory coalition with the Liberal Democrats and an election that the Bank of England Governor Mervyn King believes will leave the winning Party out of power for a generation due to the unpopularity of the necessary austerity measures. Parallels could be drawn with the 1992 General Election, in which neither the Labour or the Conservative Parties particularly wanted to win due to the gathering economic storm, and ultimately Labour's short term defeat was their long term gain.

Again a case could be made for the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg as the big winners of the 2010 General Election; an increase in their share of the popular vote, increased exposure on a national level and the possibility to influence legislation at a cabinet level. But, and there was always going to be a big but, are the Liberal Democrats trading short term influence for long term obscurity . Many voters feel betrayed that the Lib Dems are propping up a Tory administration that are ideologically significantly separate and are going to be used are a tool for David Cameron to modernise his own party. It will be too easy at the next general election for the Conservative Party to blame the Liberal Democrats for the failings of this current administration. Damned by both sides of the party, the Liberal Democrats could spend another thirty years waiting for a taste of power.

If there is a significant loser in this election there is little argument that Gordon Brown has achieved this most dubious of accolades. But it always was likely to happen, any incumbent Prime Minister has a record to defend and Gordon Brown just was not that good at defending his legacy. However, the Labour Party could be the big winners of the election in the long term, even though the electorate roundly rejected their current reincarnation. There obviously is a will amongst the British electorate for a progressive policy agenda, and probably the Labour Party would have polled better if Gordon Brown was not in power, but the loss was not a rout as many commentators had predicted. If the Labour Party reorganise and realign themselves during their period in opposition the next election could be a significant success - if Mervyn King is to be believed.

And the winner is... No one!

Faustian Deal or No Deal...

With rumour and counter rumour, the General Election malaise continues to remain unresolved. The central issues surrounds the options available to Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats; it would not be overstating the issue by pronouncing that Mr Clegg and his advisers have a chance to revolutionize British politics. The Lib Dems are a party standing on the edge of the precipice, one ill advised step the party could become an irrelevant side show for another 90 years, alternatively if they carefully plot their way through this political minefield the Liberal Democrats could conceivably become a genuine third party.

The warnings are clear and well signposted - join a Conservative coalition and risk alienating most of the core support, join a Labour coalition and be perceived to have no mandate from the electorate whilst becoming the crutch for an ailing Prime Minster (damnation by association, if you will). Yet the easiest road to follow could be the hardest for the general public to forgive, that is do nothing - allow the Conservative Party to form a minority administration and pass a Queen's Speech, but only provide support on an ad-hoc basis. If the economy begins to struggle the Conservative Party and Tory supporting press will have the perfect whipping boy to blame for the indecision in the market - that is the Lib Dems refused to help the nation during difficult times because of petty partisan politics. But if there is a significant improvement in the economy David Cameron can take all the credit for leading Good Ship Britannia through the worst of economic storms despite the hindrance of the "unpatriotic" Mr Clegg.

However, the "do nothing" option is quite tempting for many Liberal Democrats, it would not alienate the core support, allowing the party leadership to only pass legislation that was politically palatable, it would also allow the Labour Party to regain some of their former strength with a brief period of opposition (i.e. sack Gordon Brown) and with the prospect of an autumn general election due to a weak government the Lib Dems could form a coalition with their more natural bedfellows the Labour Party. This is a long shot, but a risk/reward calculation could provide the Liberal Democrats with an opportunity that seems to arise once every hundred years - the opportunity to redefine the political caste.

Ratf*****g - UK Style

There is a new style of politics developing in Britain, to anyone that has just a passing interest in US politics, the insidious sniping and constant mudslinging are all too familiar. It is not surprising that Nick Clegg has become a serious threat to the Conservatives and Labour, his performance on the first Leaders debate was accomplished in this X-Factor driven society, and his bounce in the opinion polls came as shock to everyone that had not seen Will Young beat Gareth Gates in Pop Idol.

Therefore it is only to be expected that the Right of Centre press has reacted to Nick Clegg in a way that is normally only reserved for war criminals and paedophiles. These personal attacks are shameful, they add nothing to the political debate, just contribute to atmosphere of cheap politics in the minds of the public. By all means attack the policies of the other parties, that is what the election is about - but personal slurs reduce this election to a substandard US election run on a shoe string budget.

Furthermore, the election debate is dragged further down into the mire when organisations like ConservativeHome, run "advertisements" like this:



Firstly, this is amazing from a party that, during the MPs Expenses scandal, claimed for duck houses and moat cleaning. Secondly and probably more importantly, it cheapens the Conservative message. At least in America they throw a bit of money at their slurs (see below):

The Kingmaker and I

In the run up to a general election, party leaders can be forgiven for making some pretty rash statements, the pressure and punishing schedule will inevitably cause a lack of focus. But to base your entire election campaign and manifesto around these pretty rash statements is disingenuous and fool hardy at best. Both Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party have taken centre stage this week with their manifesto launch and some pretty dubious claims concerning how they will use their influence in a hung parliament to gain concessions for their respective countries.

The claims themselves are not particularly dubious, every small party or independent will sell their vote on certain issues to gain influence in other areas, it is the way of a Westminster Parliamentary System. The disingenuous aspect to their claims is the misrepresentation and exaggeration to the electorate of the likelihood of these events; in essence they are suffering from small dog syndrome - they believe they are bigger than they are.

Currently the SNP have seven Members of Parliament whilst Plaid have three out of the total of 646, this represents 1.5% of the elected representatives at the House of Commons. This has always been traditionally adequate to contribute to debates, influence policy and potentially effect some legislation, but to now suggest that the national parties will have undue influence on any potentially weak or coalition government after this current election is simply not feasible.

According to the latest Populus Poll the current voting intentions are as follows:

• Conservatives - 32%
• Labour - 28%
• Liberal Democrat - 31%
• Other - 9%

If this was the result on 6th May, the potential breakdown of seats in the House of Commons would look something like this according to the BBC (the winning number of seats is 326):

• Conservatives - 234 seats
• Labour - 278 seats
• Liberal Democrat - 109 seats
• Other - 29 seats (SNP - 8 seats, Plaid - 3)

There is no conceivable calculation that would allow the national parties the influence they claim they will exert over the legislative process. The best case scenario for both Plaid and the SNP is that a minority government is formed by the Conservatives in which they control approximately 320 seats, this is the only outcome that would allow them the influence they desire. If Labour form a minority government the Lib Dems will probably become the kingmakers, either by way of coalition or by supporting only specific aspects of legislation.

However, this issue perfectly highlights the incredible inequities in our current electoral system and the bias that the incumbent administration can command over redrawing constituency boundaries to make marginal seats safer.

Clause 76

General Election Live TV Leaders Debates Rules

Audience selection

1. The objective is to select an audience which is broadly a demographic cross section of the country.

2. The audience to be made up of roughly 200 people, subject to venue capacity.

3. ICM has been appointed as an external recruitment agency and the methods of recruitment are based on their expert advice. In broad terms, we will aim to:

4. Recruit within a 30 mile radius of the host city, mindful of administrative borders on either side of that radius based on the revised ICM list of constituencies.

5. Recruit according to gender, age, ethnicity and social class to best reflect the broader voting-age population. The recruitment procedure will be transparent, and its methodology will be available to the parties for comment.

6. Ensure around 80% of the audience is made up of voters who express a voting intention at the time of recruitment.

7. These will be subdivided into ratios which reflect a ratio of 7 Labour, 7 Conservative, 5 Lib Dem .The political ratios will take precedence over the demographic in the final selection of the audience by ICM.

8. Within the 80% (see point 6) the broadcasters retain the right to recruit some audience members who express an intention to vote for smaller parties.

9. Ensure that around 20% of the audience will be undecided but will be politically engaged. ICM's definition of undecided voters to be the basis of this selection.

10. Reserve a small number of seats for participants from outside the ICM selected audience, whose questions have been pre-submitted and selected by the broadcaster's editorial panel. The broadcasters may use a variety of methods to encourage the submission of such questions from across the UK in the build up to the debates.

11. The number of questions from outside the ICM selected audience will be a maximum of four per debate.

12. Over-recruit by a small margin to accommodate "drop outs" or "no shows"

13. Issue audience members with a protocol of rules, including security procedures for entry and conduct during the debates. The protocol will be agreed by the parties.

Audience role

14. The objective is to ensure maximum debate between the party leaders - the distinctive characteristic of these programmes - whilst allowing the audience's voices to be heard directly posing questions.

15. Each broadcaster will nominate a panel to choose the questions for its debate. The panel's membership will be public, but they will meet in private.

16. Each selection panel will include a member to oversee compliance. List of names of panel members attached

17. The objective of each panel shall be to ensure fair question selection in order to frame a balanced debate within the rules of our agreements.

18. The panel will meet confidentially in the weeks running up to their debate.

19. All questions submitted by the ICM selected audience will be seen by a member of the panel. Email questions will be sifted and a selection given to the panel.

20. Initially, each panel will sift through a selection of questions drawn from those submitted by members of the public.

21. They will narrow down their selections in a series of meetings up to and including the day of the debate.

22. Each panel will have five to seven members, including a designated chair who would have a casting vote if necessary.

23. The panel cannot be quorate with fewer than three of its members present.

24. In selecting its questions, the panel will take full account of the following:

25. Each question will be relevant to all three party leaders.

26. No question shall focus on one party or one leader.

27. All questions will be based on election issues

28. Audience members will be made aware of these rules before submitting their final questions.

29. Half the programme will be based on the agreed theme. Within that portion of the programme, a maximum of three questions will be selected on a single sub-theme (as listed in point 65 of this document).

30. Half the programme will be unthemed. In this portion of the programme, a maximum of two questions will be selected on a single subject.

31. The range of questions chosen will reflect the broadcasters' legal and compliance responsibilities for due impartiality and fairness.

32. The panel will use its editorial judgement to select questions and will take into account factors such as the prominence of certain issues in the campaign, the distinctiveness of the different parties' policies on election issues, voters' interest and issues relevant to the role of the Prime Minister.

33. Within these rules, the editorial independence of the panel shall be paramount, because each broadcaster is answerable to its regulator for its programme content.

34. Questions may be selected by the editorial selection panel up to the start of the debate.

35. The selected questions will not be shown to anyone outside the editorial team in advance of the programmes.

36. Members of the audience will ask their questions. The moderator will ask the leaders to respond. The moderator may read email questions.

37. All questions will be addressed to and answered by all three leaders.

38. The audience members will be restricted to asking the selected questions.

39. There will be an option of viewer involvement via emails read by the moderator.

40. In order to maximise the time available for viewers to hear the leaders discussing election issues with each other, the studio audience will be asked not to applaud during the debate. There will be opportunities to do so both at the beginning and at the end of each programme.

Structure of programme

41. The programme will start with all three leaders on set and standing at their podiums.

42. The moderator will have a podium/desk and will move within a small area to allow eyeline with the audience and the leaders.

43. The moderator will introduce the leaders,

44. The first half of the programme will be on the agreed theme but with the agreement of all the parties, in case of a major national or international event not included in the theme of the debate, the moderator will ask the leaders for their reaction to the development at the start of the programme before moving on to the theme.

45. The time taken for the reaction to such an event will be added to the time available for the themed part of the debate, unless the event is clearly part of the theme of the debate, in which case the reaction will be counted as part of the time allotted to the theme.

46. Each leader will make an opening statement on the theme of the debate lasting for 1 minute. After the three opening statements the moderator will take the first question on the agreed theme. There will be closing statements of 1 minute 30 seconds from all three leaders at the end of the 90 minutes.

47. Each leader will have 1 minute to answer the question.

48. Each leader will then have 1 minute to respond to the answers.

49. The moderator may then open the discussion to free debate between the leaders for up to 4 minutes on merit.

50. The length of the debate on each question will be decided by the programme editor.

51. The programme editor will use their best endeavours to keep to the 4 minute time allowance but it may need to be extended in the interest of equality of treatment.

52. Questions will be taken on the theme until around half way through the programme, depending on timing and ensuring fair treatment of all three leaders.

53. At the end of the themed period, the moderator will open the debate to general questions selected by the broadcaster's panel from the audience or via email.

54. The same timing format will apply to the general questions i.e. each leader will have 1 minute to answer the question. Each leader will then have 1 minute to respond. The moderator will then open the discussion to free debate between the leaders for up to 4 minutes on merit

55. There will be a clock indicating the time remaining for statements, answers to questions and responses. This will be visible to the candidates and moderator but not to the audience in the debate or on screen.

56. The order of speakers, based on an agreed grid, has been determined by the parties drawing lots.

57. At the end of the programme the three leaders will shake hands.

Role of the moderator

58. To moderate the programme

59. To keep the leaders to the agreed time limits

60. To ensure free-flowing debate being fair to all candidates over the course of the programme.

61. To ensure fairness on the direction of the programme editor

62. To seek factual clarification where necessary

63. It is not the moderator's role to criticise or comment on the leaders' answers.

64. The candidates accept the authority of the moderator to referee the rules on stage and ensure a free flowing, fair debate conducted within the agreed rules

Themes

65. Order of themed debates. The order of the themes for the first half of each programme was determined by the broadcasters drawing lots. The order is as follows:

1.Domestic affairs including but not exclusively: NHS; Education; Immigration; Law and Order; Family; Constitution; Trust in politics; Political reform;

2.International affairs including but not exclusively; International relations; Afghanistan; Iraq; Iran; Middle East; UK defence; International terrorism; Europe; Climate change; China; International Development

3.Economic affairs including but not exclusively: financing of public services; Taxation; Debt; Deficit; Public finances; Recession; Recovery; Banking and finance; Business; Pensions; Jobs;

Set

66. The leaders will stand at podiums throughout the debate. The positions of the three leaders during the debates are to be determined by agreement with all parties.

67. The moderator will have a podium/desk and will move within a small area to allow eyeline with the audience and the leaders.

68. Each broadcaster responsible for their own titles, music, branding etc.

Audience cutaways

69. The purpose of the programmes are for the viewers to see and hear the party leaders engaging in debate with each other and answering questions from the audience. The audience is a key element of the programmes and has to be seen by the viewers but there will not be undue concentration of the reactions of individual audience members.

70. There will be a close up of the questioner while he/she is asking a question.

71. There will be no close-up cutaways of a single individual audience member while the leaders are speaking.

72. However if one of the leaders directly addresses an individual audience member, a close-up shot of that individual can be shown e.g. if a leader answers a question by directly addressing the questioner.

73. There may be group shots and wide shots of the audience during the programme.

74. The programme will be confined to events inside the debate studio.

75. Breaking News straps will not be put over live coverage of the debate. On news channels (Sky News, BBC News channel), the scrolling news tickers will offer other news but will not cover breaking news lines from the debates while the debates are taking place.

76. Each party will have the right to recall the negotiating panel made up of representatives from the broadcasters and the parties, during the campaign to discuss issues arising from the debates

Where was Gordon's Mandate?

According to Paul Flynn:

"There is now a wide coalition of MPs from all wings of the Labour Party who are sadly convinced that a change of leadership in now unavoidable. It is hoped that Gordon will accept the will of the PLP and agree to a swift orderly exit."

But Mr Flynn thinks that Gordon Brown has been unfairly maligned by the Press and the public for the expenses scandal. However, what Paul Flynn fails to recognise or completely ignores is that Gordon Brown is perceived to have no mandate from the general electorate. In the public eyes Gordon Brown usurped the democratically elected Prime Minister with no legitimacy; it was a succession rather than a justification of the democratic process.

If Gordon Brown had gone to the public in October 2007 and called for a general election, he would currently be in a better situation with a justifiable mandate to govern. However, there is no mandate from the public, many people are feeling disenfranchised by the whole process. The Government have pursued policies that detach themselves from the electorate; ID cards etc. This is the main reason the public and press have turned on Gordon Brown, in a Parliament where there seems little in the way of accountability the expenses scandal was the straw that broke the camels back.

If the Labour Party choose to follow a path of electing another leader without the promise of a general election shortly afterwards, the feelings of disenfranchisement amongst the public will continually increase.