Spooky report of the week: under the current system, we already know what the next Parliament will look like
This is Ben Morgan, from communications consultancy Madano Partnership. Last weekend, Madano released a report which predicted who would be sitting in Parliament after the general elections, based on current opinion polls about the popularity of the major political parties among voters.
Look at him. He looks pretty confident he’s right. I suspect it’s not just the certainty of youth that’s driving him, either.
In any case, the national press were convinced. The report prompted stories in the weekend papers about how after the general election, more MPs would come from privately educated backgrounds, and from private sector professions like management consultancy and political communications.
None of the reports I’ve read questioned the notion of discussing election results in such detail before citizens have been to the polls.
If you’d like to read those newspaper reports, you can click here, and here.
If, however, the idea of pre-destined election results reminds you of something that makes you feel a bit uncomfortable, I’d suggest you click here instead, and sign the Open Up petition for Open Primaries.
My favourite line from the Madano press release:
“Although the report does not cover the latest wave of future resignations from Parliament, the number of likely winnable candidates still to be selected still only amounts to around 10% of the overall number. It is apparent that these selections will take many months to be confirmed. It is not expected that these future additions will radically change the overall characteristics of this new generation.”
Let’s just see about that, shall we?
1Ben's mum
wrote on 21 October 2009 at 17:33
Pleas do not make fun of my son.
Regards,
2Nick
wrote on 21 October 2009 at 17:47
Really? You think competent research is spooky? All they’ve done is look at who the currently selected candidates are, look at what the opinion polls are saying and from that they’ve got a likely picture (within a margin of error) of what the next Parliament would look like.
And primaries wouldn’t change this – once candidates have been selected, the nature of the first-past-the-post electoral system would still mean that the vast majority of seats would be safe seats (once you’ve won the primary, and most sitting MPs aren’t going to be troubled) and a competent researcher could do just what’s been done here – look at the selected candidates, make a best guess of who’ll be elected in which seat and then tell people what they’ve worked out.
If you think open primaries will magically fix this, then look over the Atlantic at what happens there. 2006 was a year of big change, with a huge swing from Republicans to Democrats and less than 10% of the seats in the House changed hands.
If you’re determined to change the make up of Parliament and the nature of politics in this country, then you’re going the wrong way about it – primaries are not the universal panacea you seem to think they are.
3Becky
wrote on 21 October 2009 at 18:00
@Nick
I guess the main difference open primaries would make is that ***I would have got to cast a vote before they were able to write the report.***
Or am I missing something?
4Nick
wrote on 21 October 2009 at 20:04
Assuming the primary in your area was contested, of course – most incumbents in America aren’t challenged from within their own party, and what makes you think it would be different here?
And you could have cast a vote this time, if you were a member of a party.
5Morus
wrote on 21 October 2009 at 23:53
He’s right though. There are very few winnable seats where the candidates haven’t been chosen, and the various polling models already tell us who is likely to win in about 500 of the 650 seats. Given how few 3-way marginals there are, you could probably draw up a list of about 800 people and be fairly confident in placing significant money that every MP elected at the next GE was on it.
Even if they all held open primaries, it wouldn’t alter the composition that much,
Legally-mandated open primaries for the GE after next (applicable to all parties with more than 2 MPs, say): that could make a real difference.
6gapsinthedialogue
wrote on 21 October 2009 at 23:55
I think the original post and its reference to the Madano report goes beyond an obsession with primaries. It rightly points out the ridiculous situation whereby we can predict the outcome of an election that is still seven months away. Someone may claim that “anything can happen in politics”, and yes….anything can indeed happen but often that catstrophic “anything” doesnt happen.
It is safe to say that it looks like the Conservatives will be elected to Government in seven months time. Our political system being the way it is, with its lack of any real choice, means voters will only choose between one of three, and more likely one of two, political parties. Indeed, we can choose other parties but our FPTP system makes it so unlikely that other parties will be represented that many individuals simply cant be arsed to vote for anyone different other than Labour, Con or LD.
Again, this article is not about making the case for the introduction of primaries (although I support the openupnow campaign). The article highlights the real lack of choice in our political system in which we can safely predict the outcome of an election which is over half a year away. What we need is the introduction of primaries as well as the small, but achievable, introduction of a more representative and accountable political system. If thats PR then its PR.