by Jack Brooks (research assistant) and Dr Sarah Lieberman (senior lecturer in politics and international relations)
If I said to you: “Sell this cake to a willing consumer” would you:
Talk in detail about the advantages of the cake, emphasizing that the cost will pale into insignificance when you taste it.
Talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the cake, taking a broadly balanced, if quite vague approach to the purchase at hand: urging the consumer to purchase the cake while admitting that it’s not very good value for money.
Immediately scream back at me that you won’t sell anything less than 12 full cakes and only then if oven they were cooked in is thrown in for free[1]. Threaten to punch me[2], threaten to punch yourself,[3] and then try to persuade everyone that threatening to punch yourself was a misunderstanding[4]. After a short cry, collect yourself and state that you are “very clear” about that fact that you may or may not punch yourself depending on how many, or how few, cakes and/or ovens you may or may not be able to sell.[5]
In this analogy, I am the European Union, you are the Conservative Party, the cake is the Brexit referendum and the willing consumer is the British public. And yes, the Conservative Party who was trying so desperately to circle option ‘B’, slipped, and accidentally chose option ‘C’. OK, this is cake, but behind all the buzzwords, waffle and ‘politicians answers’, this is the gist of the mess that surrounds David Cameron’s party following the G7 Summit in Bavaria on Monday 8th June. Should we feel sorry for Cameron? Maybe. This article will argue that he never intended any of this to happen, indeed he never even intended to win the election…
It looks inevitable that for two elections running no party will win an overall majority. Moreover, in the event of a hung Parliament and another election being held within 12 months, there is little to suggest that the result would be significantly different. All this is evidence not that Britain is hopelessly divided, rather that Britain is entering a period of major change in the functioning of its democratic system. British voters are not going to give a mandate to govern to a single party for the foreseeable future. This has been the basis of British democracy in all its various incantations for hundreds of years, from the time of elite voting to mass democracy. The two party system and its symbiotic first past the post electoral system no longer represent the wishes or have the ability to solve the grievances of the British public. British democracy has evolved continuously to adapt to societal changes, it will evolve again and adapt to this present situation.
By Mark Bennister, Senior Lecturer in British PoliticsI’m going to answer that question indirectly. Stefan Rousseau/PA
The final instalment in a series of non-debating debates ahead of the 2015 election took place under the auspice of David Dimbleby. It was billed as a BBC Question Time format and pitted the three main party leaders against an audience made up of the general public, 25% of whom supported each party and 25% of whom were undecided or supporters of other parties.
The format allowed for some fairly hostile questioning of David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg. The questioning largely focused on welfare and tax, immigration, the EU and the NHS but the liveliest exchanges were on the post-election horse trading that will take place in the likely event of an inconclusive election result on May 7.
Cameron peps up
First came Prime Minister David Cameron, who bounded up the stairs to greet his audience, no doubt mindful of the accusations that his campaign has lacked energy and that he is looking tired.
He was quick with his responses (sometimes too quick, such as when he made an error in his response to a question on child tax credits). He very often avoided the question, though, and appeared more frenetic and less calm than the situation demanded. Confronted with challenging questions, he sought to deflect attention to Labour as often as possible and present voters with a binary choice on May 7.
In a stage-managed moment worthy of a Boris Johnson conference speech, Cameron pulled out the letter left by Treasury minister Liam Byrne when Labour last left government, claiming there was no money left. The theatrics were the basis of the narrative to be rammed home at every opportunity: you can’t trust Labour on the economy.
Note the theatrics.Stefan Rousseau/PA
Cameron maintained his fast pace throughout but felt on the defensive on the NHS and the EU. The former is his “life’s work” he attested, and voters will have to trust his track record on the latter. Neither were particularly convincing arguments.
Cameron stuck doggedly to his line that he is fighting for an overall majority when quizzed about post election negotiations. When pressed, he accepted his red line would be the EU referendum. The audience was unimpressed and warned him to treat voters with enough intelligence to deserve answers on which parties he would or would not work with in a hung parliament.
Miliband firm on SNP
Ed Miliband’s style was calmer. He took a more conversational tone than Cameron and attempted to directly answer questions and address each questioner by name.
But he once again blamed the global financial crisis – rather than the last Labour government – for the state of the British economy. This highlights Labour’s challenge – voters equate management of the government’s finances with their own personal financial management. The last Labour government remains a millstone, even if the economics is not correct. Miliband found it hard to escape this line of questioning.
Like Cameron, Miliband insisted he was working for a majority. He stated that there would be no deal (of any kind) with the SNP. As an audience member noted, this may totally rule out any Labour government – and Miliband said that was a price he was willing to pay.
Clegg plays honest
Nick Clegg had the most gain from the Question Time format. He was both light hearted and combative in defending his decision to go into coalition in 2010, insisting that he put “the country before the party”.
He was honest enough not to over claim the Liberal Democrats’ chances in the election. He repeated his assertion that the party with the biggest mandate has the right to “make the first move” – which is not constitutionally correct.
We learnt from this final exchange that while Cameron and Miliband may publicly claim to be fighting for a majority, they are obviously working on red lines for negotiation. The audience however seemed one step ahead of the party leaders, understanding that deals will have to be done.
Cameron continues with an aloof and often patronising approach but has a spring back in his step. Miliband’s conversational stance can seem too fake and he still lacks the authenticity necessary to help the party surge. Clegg may have regained a bit of credibility but it is likely to be too little, too late.
This post originally appeared in the Conversation Blog: http://theconversation.com/leaders-dodge-talk-of-coalitions-in-question-time-showdown-41065
By Mark Bennister, Senior Lecturer in British Politics
Of course when I want to know about politics I ask my 16-year old daughter. Teenage girls have generated a bit of a twitterstorm over #Milifandom. Apparently he’s cool, he does “banter” and he can “connect” with young people.
Judging by the twitter activity, vines, memes and associated social media exchanges, this has become an entertaining antidote to what is currently a rather turgid campaign.
Sadly for Ed this legion of new supporters are too young to vote on May 7. But is something going on here? Has Ed’s stock risen? Has the leader as liability now become the leader as asset? Here are three possible explanations for the sudden Miliband surge.
Milifandom as seen in the Independent
Low expectations
We should remember that Miliband started this campaign from a particularly low base. In June 2014 he was polling so badly Jeremy Paxman memorably claimed “he hasn’t much more appeal than a flatulent dog in a lift”.
The Politics and International Relations programme as part of its Making Politics Matter series held a hustings for the Canterbury and Whitstable constituency on Friday 24th of April. Almost 300 members of the public, students, and community activists piled into the Michael Berry Lecture Theater leaving standing room only at the event.
Standing room only for CCCU hustings
Those who came were rewarded with a superb event. There was palpable energy in the room as candidates responded with passion and erudition to various questions from the audience, generously moderated by members of the Canterbury and District Inter-Faith Action. Topics raised included – Women’s representation in Parliament, Immigrant deaths in the Mediterranean, Tax avoidance, the Future of Higher Education, and land use in Kent. There was also a very lively debate on twitter under the hashtag #CCCUhustings.
Politics and International Relations programme director Dr. David Bates commentated: “Who said people are not interested in politics! Over 300 people (students and public alike) attended The General Election hustings on Friday evening. Making Politics Matter (led by staff and students of Politics and International Relations at Canterbury Christ Church University) are committed to public engagement. We would like to thank our organising partners – Canterbury and District Inter-Faith Action (CADIFA), the candidates, and the general public for attending. The questions posed were fantastic, and the candidate responses enlightening. The contest for Canterbury and Whitstable really is hotting up!”.
The Canterbury Times newspaper was present on the night and have a nice selection of quotes available to view here.
canterburypolitics.wordpress.com 