Showing posts with label general election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label general election. Show all posts
Monday, 23 August 2010
The 2010 general election
These graphs of poll data relating to the 2010 general election from the British Election Study based at the University of Essex summarise some interesting data on what happened: Election
Monday, 10 May 2010
The Scottish dimension
One of the most remarkable aspects of this election has been the fact that no seats changed hands in Scotland. The West Lothian question - almost as intractable as the Schleswig-Holstein question - is also back on the political agenda. But have we done enough to learn from Scottish and Welsh experience of coalitions/minority governments?
Here are some interesting comments from leading Scottish politics expert Dr Paul Cairney of Aberdeen University:
The UK general election result has, for the first time in over three decades, produced a hung or balanced parliament. Since the UK has limited post-war experience of this outcome it is natural that commentators have begun to look elsewhere for lessons on the practicalities of minority and coalition government. Yet, there has been a notable absence of lesson-drawing from the Scottish Parliament (and the Welsh Assembly). This seems odd given that the Liberal Democrats have eight years’ experience of coalition government and the Conservatives have three year’s experience of supporting a minority government (suggesting that the parties involved might look to learn from their Scottish counterparts).
It is understandable that lessons should be sought from the most relevant political systems but no-one has established a definitive list that excludes Scotland (the Constitution Unit and Institute for Government’s Making Minority Government Work includes Canada, New Zealand and Scotland). I outline two points of comparison based on the two most prized qualities of government highlighted by David Cameron and Gordon Brown: strength and stability. From 1999-2007 the Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition government provided both. Its command of parliamentary seats (57% of the 129 seats in 1999 and 52% in 2003) was reflected not only in plenary but also in its majority of all committees (see Cairney .
This provided particular strength for the government which, to all intents and purposes, acted as a majoritarian government in the UK mould, passing an extensive programme of legislation (including annual budget bills) with virtually no effective opposition. Its impressive party whip and the high degree of voting cooperation within the coalition also ensured stability (if anything, Labour party dissent and in-fighting was more worrying than disagreements between the parties). Overall, the experience was heartening for a Scottish Labour party that prized above all else a ‘settled programme’ and feared the prospect of political embarrassment from political ambushes led by the SNP that they loathed so much.
This was followed from 2007 by an SNP minority government (36% of seats) which, although less stable, has still been able to last well beyond the international average (14 months compared to 18 for coalitions and 30 for single party majorities) and should complete a full 4-year term. Its minority status has also made it relatively ‘weak’ although there have been surprisingly few instances of real problems. It loses many non-binding motions, has had to forego some legislation that it does not have parliamentary support for (including the referendum on independence bill and a bill to introduce local income tax), came under sustained pressure on the Lockerbie issue and had an annual budget bill voted down (a new, but virtually the same, bill was passed soon after), but no event has affected its status.
Overall, the approach taken by the other parties is that the SNP may often be doing the wrong thing but it has the right to try. Of course there are qualifications to each tale which make direct comparisons difficult – e.g. the Scottish Parliament already uses PR and there is an assumption that coalition or minority will always occur, the Liberal Democrats are closer ideologically to Labour, The Scottish Liberal Democrats appeared less constrained by their membership (and the ‘triple lock’ in particular), the SNP is popular and no-one wants another election, the rules on dissolving governments are different – but such reservations apply to all comparisons of two things that are not identical.
The Scottish case is also important because there is a tendency to assume that its politicians still operate in the ‘Westminster mould’ despite their access to new institutions and the symbolism of their non-adversarial chamber. As such, perhaps the most telling lesson comes from the unwillingness of politicians or parties in Scotland to ‘rock the boat’ for fear of being blamed for an extra election during a time of economic crisis. Ironically, economic instability may provide the platform for a significant period of political stability".
Here are some interesting comments from leading Scottish politics expert Dr Paul Cairney of Aberdeen University:
The UK general election result has, for the first time in over three decades, produced a hung or balanced parliament. Since the UK has limited post-war experience of this outcome it is natural that commentators have begun to look elsewhere for lessons on the practicalities of minority and coalition government. Yet, there has been a notable absence of lesson-drawing from the Scottish Parliament (and the Welsh Assembly). This seems odd given that the Liberal Democrats have eight years’ experience of coalition government and the Conservatives have three year’s experience of supporting a minority government (suggesting that the parties involved might look to learn from their Scottish counterparts).
It is understandable that lessons should be sought from the most relevant political systems but no-one has established a definitive list that excludes Scotland (the Constitution Unit and Institute for Government’s Making Minority Government Work includes Canada, New Zealand and Scotland). I outline two points of comparison based on the two most prized qualities of government highlighted by David Cameron and Gordon Brown: strength and stability. From 1999-2007 the Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition government provided both. Its command of parliamentary seats (57% of the 129 seats in 1999 and 52% in 2003) was reflected not only in plenary but also in its majority of all committees (see Cairney .
This provided particular strength for the government which, to all intents and purposes, acted as a majoritarian government in the UK mould, passing an extensive programme of legislation (including annual budget bills) with virtually no effective opposition. Its impressive party whip and the high degree of voting cooperation within the coalition also ensured stability (if anything, Labour party dissent and in-fighting was more worrying than disagreements between the parties). Overall, the experience was heartening for a Scottish Labour party that prized above all else a ‘settled programme’ and feared the prospect of political embarrassment from political ambushes led by the SNP that they loathed so much.
This was followed from 2007 by an SNP minority government (36% of seats) which, although less stable, has still been able to last well beyond the international average (14 months compared to 18 for coalitions and 30 for single party majorities) and should complete a full 4-year term. Its minority status has also made it relatively ‘weak’ although there have been surprisingly few instances of real problems. It loses many non-binding motions, has had to forego some legislation that it does not have parliamentary support for (including the referendum on independence bill and a bill to introduce local income tax), came under sustained pressure on the Lockerbie issue and had an annual budget bill voted down (a new, but virtually the same, bill was passed soon after), but no event has affected its status.
Overall, the approach taken by the other parties is that the SNP may often be doing the wrong thing but it has the right to try. Of course there are qualifications to each tale which make direct comparisons difficult – e.g. the Scottish Parliament already uses PR and there is an assumption that coalition or minority will always occur, the Liberal Democrats are closer ideologically to Labour, The Scottish Liberal Democrats appeared less constrained by their membership (and the ‘triple lock’ in particular), the SNP is popular and no-one wants another election, the rules on dissolving governments are different – but such reservations apply to all comparisons of two things that are not identical.
The Scottish case is also important because there is a tendency to assume that its politicians still operate in the ‘Westminster mould’ despite their access to new institutions and the symbolism of their non-adversarial chamber. As such, perhaps the most telling lesson comes from the unwillingness of politicians or parties in Scotland to ‘rock the boat’ for fear of being blamed for an extra election during a time of economic crisis. Ironically, economic instability may provide the platform for a significant period of political stability".
Friday, 7 May 2010
Can the Lib Dems step up to the plate?
David Dimbleby was being less than generous about the new media on the BBC yesterday (but he had an incredibly long shift, I would like some of what he is on). One group that has been formed on Facebook and has attracted over 5,000 members urges us to 'Cool it. We don't want our government linked to a 24 hour news agenda.'
Of course, the real pressure to take a decision comes from the perceived need to placate the financial markets which could reactly badly if no progess towards a government is being made by early next week. Despite some predictions, there has been no panic sell off of gilts yet. Trends in international stock markets, including an unexplained record plunge on Wall Street, have been hitting the Footsie. Sterling has lost ground against the dollar.
One of the questions in my mind is whether the Lib Dems can ever be persuaded to accept the responsibilities of government with all the difficult choices that entails? In practice their leader's freedom of manoeuvre is limited by the arcane and challenging provisions of their constitution as far as any formal arragement is concerned.
Remember also that this is a party that split (fatally) in the First World War, formed a government after it reliant on Conservative support and then split again in 1931 over the formation of a National Government, coming close to disappearing altogether. Already dissidents have been appearing in the ranks with Simon Hughes raising the bar for an agreement with the Conservatives.
Talks have started with the Conservatives. If the real deal breaker is proportional representation, David Cameron could offer a timetable for any enquiry, culminating in a referendum in which the Conservatives would be free to campaign against electoral reform. But that might be a deal too far for some of his supporters.
Talks would then have to be held with Labour about a so-called 'losers' coalition'. If the price was Gordon Brown's head, that would cause further complications and possibly lead to another 'unelected' prime minister. What all this suggests is that, having failed to deliver a clear verdict, the voters might be asked to try again in the autumn. Quite how far the absence of Gordon Brown would then help Labour is an interesting question: sometimes I think the negative effect he has had on Labour performance is overstated.
Why did the Conservatives fail to win an overall majority? I think their supported to slip when they started to talk about austerity last autumn. They changed tack, but voters' concerns about public services had been re-awakened. What is really worrying about this is that it shows a resistance to public expenditure cuts that will be needed to bring down the budget deficit whichever combination of parties is in office.
Of course, the real pressure to take a decision comes from the perceived need to placate the financial markets which could reactly badly if no progess towards a government is being made by early next week. Despite some predictions, there has been no panic sell off of gilts yet. Trends in international stock markets, including an unexplained record plunge on Wall Street, have been hitting the Footsie. Sterling has lost ground against the dollar.
One of the questions in my mind is whether the Lib Dems can ever be persuaded to accept the responsibilities of government with all the difficult choices that entails? In practice their leader's freedom of manoeuvre is limited by the arcane and challenging provisions of their constitution as far as any formal arragement is concerned.
Remember also that this is a party that split (fatally) in the First World War, formed a government after it reliant on Conservative support and then split again in 1931 over the formation of a National Government, coming close to disappearing altogether. Already dissidents have been appearing in the ranks with Simon Hughes raising the bar for an agreement with the Conservatives.
Talks have started with the Conservatives. If the real deal breaker is proportional representation, David Cameron could offer a timetable for any enquiry, culminating in a referendum in which the Conservatives would be free to campaign against electoral reform. But that might be a deal too far for some of his supporters.
Talks would then have to be held with Labour about a so-called 'losers' coalition'. If the price was Gordon Brown's head, that would cause further complications and possibly lead to another 'unelected' prime minister. What all this suggests is that, having failed to deliver a clear verdict, the voters might be asked to try again in the autumn. Quite how far the absence of Gordon Brown would then help Labour is an interesting question: sometimes I think the negative effect he has had on Labour performance is overstated.
Why did the Conservatives fail to win an overall majority? I think their supported to slip when they started to talk about austerity last autumn. They changed tack, but voters' concerns about public services had been re-awakened. What is really worrying about this is that it shows a resistance to public expenditure cuts that will be needed to bring down the budget deficit whichever combination of parties is in office.
Come on down says Dave
Ann Arbor, Mi: David Cameron has made his opening offer to the Liberal Democrats, emphasising the areas of agreement but also drawing lines in the sand on immigration and further extensions of the powers of the EU. Dave did not use the 'C' word, but he did not rule it out either and indicated that a closer arrangement might be preferable to a 'confidence and supply' arrangement. Lib Dem sources are indicating that they regard what Dave has had to say as 'significant'/
On electoral reform, he offered an all party inquiry on all aspects of political reform. The key question for the Lib Dems is what would the timetable be and would it lead it anywhere before a second election which could follow within twelve months.
Above all, Dave stressed the importance of tackling the budget deficit right away and that might face the Lib Dems with some unpalatable choices.
As he was trying (with some success) to look like a prime minister, perhaps the time has come to stop calling him 'Dave'.
On electoral reform, he offered an all party inquiry on all aspects of political reform. The key question for the Lib Dems is what would the timetable be and would it lead it anywhere before a second election which could follow within twelve months.
Above all, Dave stressed the importance of tackling the budget deficit right away and that might face the Lib Dems with some unpalatable choices.
As he was trying (with some success) to look like a prime minister, perhaps the time has come to stop calling him 'Dave'.
Pound and shares slump
The pound and shares have slumped as fears grow that the election results have not produced an outcome that will sustain a government that can take decisive measure to deal with the budget deficit. The UK could face a worsening crisis.
Many of the remaining seats are Conservative ones, but Dave will probably fall short of an overall majority. The Clegg bubble has burst, yet Nick Clegg could still be kingmaker. One thing that he has to bear in mind is that he could lose even more seats in an early election.
The contest in Warwick and Leamington, which we have been following and is yet to declare, assumes an even greater importance.
I think that Dave will eventually be able to form a minority government, but it will be constrained in what it can done. It may make for interesting politics, but I am not sure it is what we need in an economic crisis.
Many of the remaining seats are Conservative ones, but Dave will probably fall short of an overall majority. The Clegg bubble has burst, yet Nick Clegg could still be kingmaker. One thing that he has to bear in mind is that he could lose even more seats in an early election.
The contest in Warwick and Leamington, which we have been following and is yet to declare, assumes an even greater importance.
I think that Dave will eventually be able to form a minority government, but it will be constrained in what it can done. It may make for interesting politics, but I am not sure it is what we need in an economic crisis.
The rewards of good incumbency
Ann Arbor, Mi: Well liked incumbents got their reward in the general eletion and less popular ones were ejected by electors. In Gedling, a key Conservative target seat, Warwick politics graduate and minister Vernon Coker retained his seat. An American colleague visited his campaign and noted that his posters said 'Vote Vern Coker' in big letters and 'Labour' in much smaller type.
An asteroid hit Liberal Democrat Lembit Opik when he lost his Montgomery seat to na popular local farmer and former Welsh Assembly member. The Lib Dems lost Harrogate where a popular local MP stood down, but they took Redcar where feeling was running high over the closure of the steel works.
For all the talk of a wave of independents, the incumbents in Blaenau Gwent and Wyre Forest lost their seats and Esther Rantzen polled less than 5 per cent of the votes in Luton South. 'Celebrity' politics has not arrived and the much heralded death of the two party system appears to have been overstated, although the Green victory in Brighton Pavilion will add a distinctive voice to the Commons. The BNP polled badly in their target seats in Barking and Stoke.
An asteroid hit Liberal Democrat Lembit Opik when he lost his Montgomery seat to na popular local farmer and former Welsh Assembly member. The Lib Dems lost Harrogate where a popular local MP stood down, but they took Redcar where feeling was running high over the closure of the steel works.
For all the talk of a wave of independents, the incumbents in Blaenau Gwent and Wyre Forest lost their seats and Esther Rantzen polled less than 5 per cent of the votes in Luton South. 'Celebrity' politics has not arrived and the much heralded death of the two party system appears to have been overstated, although the Green victory in Brighton Pavilion will add a distinctive voice to the Commons. The BNP polled badly in their target seats in Barking and Stoke.
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Tories could do deal with Democratic Unionists
All the focus in 'hung Parliament' discussions has been about the Liberal Democrats and occasionally the Nationalists, but the Democratic Unionists have been relatively ignored. However, if the Conservatives fall just short of an overall majority, they could provide enough support to keep them in office, bearing in mind also that the likely five Sinn Fein MPs will not turn up in Westminster.
Certainly Dave Cameron thinks he can seal the deal: Deal (Sam Cam fans should note that this report contains a picture of her with her hair in considerable disarray). The price would be safeguarding public expenditure in Northern Ireland which he had previously implied he intended to cut back. However at £200m the price is not that steep for relative security in office.
Dave has made it clear that he would rather head a minority government than do a deal with Nick Clegg. This perhaps explains why Clegg has now said that electoral reform is now not a precondition of agreement, whereas one might think it was the key demand for the Lib Dems. There are increasing signs from the polls that the Clegg bubble is bursting as Lib Dem policies come under close scrutiny in the polls.
Certainly Dave Cameron thinks he can seal the deal: Deal (Sam Cam fans should note that this report contains a picture of her with her hair in considerable disarray). The price would be safeguarding public expenditure in Northern Ireland which he had previously implied he intended to cut back. However at £200m the price is not that steep for relative security in office.
Dave has made it clear that he would rather head a minority government than do a deal with Nick Clegg. This perhaps explains why Clegg has now said that electoral reform is now not a precondition of agreement, whereas one might think it was the key demand for the Lib Dems. There are increasing signs from the polls that the Clegg bubble is bursting as Lib Dem policies come under close scrutiny in the polls.
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Who will win in Warwick and Leamington?
The visit of Gordon Brown today emphasises the importance of this ultra marginal. A recent MORI poll of 57 Labour-Conservative marginals shows the two parties tied at 36 per cent with the Lib Dems on 20 per cent.
There aren't that many special local factors in the constituency, even though local issues have featured in the campaign. The incumbent MP, James Plaskitt, has been an assiduous enough constituency MP, but is not a political high flyer. Any incumbency factor may have been offset by the vigorous and long-term campaign mounted by Chris White for the Conservatives.
Given their lack of presence in the constituency, and the fact that it is a Conservative-Labour marginal means that the Liberal Democrats are likely to poll below their national vote share.
The Labour majority was 266 in 2005, but the transfer of three predominantly Conservative wards to the new Kenilworth and Southam constituency gives a notional Labour majority of 4,393. There would need to be a swing to the Conservatives from Labour of over 5 per cent for them to win the seat. If they did, it would mean a slender Conservative overall majority, but because there will not be uniform national swing, they could win the seat and not have an overall majority.
I will be on the plane to the States on Thursday and my vote has already been cast. Will Chris White be on a Chiltern Railways train to London on Friday afternoon with a piece of his election literature to prove that he is the new member for Warwick and Leamington? Or will James Plaskitt resume his duties? I am genuinely uncertain, but the local Conservatives appear to be quietly confident. So my guess is a majority of 828 for Chris White.
There aren't that many special local factors in the constituency, even though local issues have featured in the campaign. The incumbent MP, James Plaskitt, has been an assiduous enough constituency MP, but is not a political high flyer. Any incumbency factor may have been offset by the vigorous and long-term campaign mounted by Chris White for the Conservatives.
Given their lack of presence in the constituency, and the fact that it is a Conservative-Labour marginal means that the Liberal Democrats are likely to poll below their national vote share.
The Labour majority was 266 in 2005, but the transfer of three predominantly Conservative wards to the new Kenilworth and Southam constituency gives a notional Labour majority of 4,393. There would need to be a swing to the Conservatives from Labour of over 5 per cent for them to win the seat. If they did, it would mean a slender Conservative overall majority, but because there will not be uniform national swing, they could win the seat and not have an overall majority.
I will be on the plane to the States on Thursday and my vote has already been cast. Will Chris White be on a Chiltern Railways train to London on Friday afternoon with a piece of his election literature to prove that he is the new member for Warwick and Leamington? Or will James Plaskitt resume his duties? I am genuinely uncertain, but the local Conservatives appear to be quietly confident. So my guess is a majority of 828 for Chris White.
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Chris White, Conservative
In the last of the candidate profiles for Warwick and Leamington, we look at the Conservative candidate, Chris White, who fought the seat unsuccessfully in 2005.
If one wanted a carcicature of a totally unsuitable Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington it would be someone in a union jack waistcoat who was obsessed with the Common Fisheries Policy (Leamington is about as far as you can get from the sea in England).
I have had the opportunity to have a number of long conversations with Chris White over the past year and he is the opposite of such a person. He is a cerebal, thoughtful person who is prepared to listen to alternative views, although, of course, he is a genuine Conservative in his values and principles. He is also a very dynamic and energetic individual with an interesting background.
He was educated at a comprehensive school and took a MBA after his first degree in engineering. He then went to work in the motor industry with MG Rover so he is one of those relatively rare candidates who has a manufacturing industry background.
Chris White has embedded itself him in the local community. Living in Warwick, he has served as a local councillor and school governor and involved himself in local charitable and voluntary activities. In the months leading up to the campaign, he has been talking to groups such as teachers and health care professionals. He has also campaigned against local fire station closures, although ironically this plan was put forward by the Conservative controlled county council.
While highighting the 'jobs tax' and safeguarding the NHS, his campaign literature contains quite a lot of emphasis on local issues such as protecting allotments and preventing over development.
The person he most admires is President Obama and the person he would like least to be stuck in a lift with is Nick Griffin. What makes him most angry is discrimination of any kind.
Dave Cameron said the other day that he is a 'one nation' Conservative and Chris White comes across as such a person. He would be an effective constituency MP with the potential for ministerial office and would not be a supporter of extremist policies or reducing front line public service.
This is a general election and voters are choosing a government as well as a MP. But the Conservatives have chosen an effective candidate who is well in tune with the constituency he seeks to represent.
If one wanted a carcicature of a totally unsuitable Conservative candidate for Warwick and Leamington it would be someone in a union jack waistcoat who was obsessed with the Common Fisheries Policy (Leamington is about as far as you can get from the sea in England).
I have had the opportunity to have a number of long conversations with Chris White over the past year and he is the opposite of such a person. He is a cerebal, thoughtful person who is prepared to listen to alternative views, although, of course, he is a genuine Conservative in his values and principles. He is also a very dynamic and energetic individual with an interesting background.
He was educated at a comprehensive school and took a MBA after his first degree in engineering. He then went to work in the motor industry with MG Rover so he is one of those relatively rare candidates who has a manufacturing industry background.
Chris White has embedded itself him in the local community. Living in Warwick, he has served as a local councillor and school governor and involved himself in local charitable and voluntary activities. In the months leading up to the campaign, he has been talking to groups such as teachers and health care professionals. He has also campaigned against local fire station closures, although ironically this plan was put forward by the Conservative controlled county council.
While highighting the 'jobs tax' and safeguarding the NHS, his campaign literature contains quite a lot of emphasis on local issues such as protecting allotments and preventing over development.
The person he most admires is President Obama and the person he would like least to be stuck in a lift with is Nick Griffin. What makes him most angry is discrimination of any kind.
Dave Cameron said the other day that he is a 'one nation' Conservative and Chris White comes across as such a person. He would be an effective constituency MP with the potential for ministerial office and would not be a supporter of extremist policies or reducing front line public service.
This is a general election and voters are choosing a government as well as a MP. But the Conservatives have chosen an effective candidate who is well in tune with the constituency he seeks to represent.
Saturday, 1 May 2010
Minor party votes could be important
In what is still a tight contest in Warwick and Leamington, the votes attracted by minor parties could be decisive. Last time they attracted 5.1 per cent of the votes.
My sense of the campaign as a whole, in England at any rate, is that the rise of the Liberal Democrats has blotted out some of the attention that might otherwise have been given to minor parries.
The internal contradictions of BNP policies were exposed when their leader was interviewed on the Campaign Show last night. It doesn't look as if they will win in Barking. The anti-BNP organisation Searchlight thinks their best chance is in Stoke where there has been a local Labour Party split in one of the seats.
I think that the Speaker will hold off Nigel Farrage's challenge for UKIP in Buckingham. I am sceptical whether the Greens will take Brighton (Pavilion).
In Warwick and Leamington, Ian Davison is standing again for the Greens. He has polled respectably in county council elections and some students may support him. I have had two pieces of campaign literature from him which strike a more moderate and reasonable note than some of the statements of the national party. I would forecast a low four figure vote. The interesting question is whether will come ahead of UKIP whose candidate has been parachuted in from Staffordshire.
An independent living in Warwick, Jim Cullinane, is on the ballot paper. Holding a masters' degree in third world politics, he appears to be an anti-politics candidate who states 'This is your opportunity to say "none of the above" without spoiling your ballot paper.' He takes a relatively libertarian line with opposition to excessive regulation. I would expect him to get no more than a few hundred votes.
My sense of the campaign as a whole, in England at any rate, is that the rise of the Liberal Democrats has blotted out some of the attention that might otherwise have been given to minor parries.
The internal contradictions of BNP policies were exposed when their leader was interviewed on the Campaign Show last night. It doesn't look as if they will win in Barking. The anti-BNP organisation Searchlight thinks their best chance is in Stoke where there has been a local Labour Party split in one of the seats.
I think that the Speaker will hold off Nigel Farrage's challenge for UKIP in Buckingham. I am sceptical whether the Greens will take Brighton (Pavilion).
In Warwick and Leamington, Ian Davison is standing again for the Greens. He has polled respectably in county council elections and some students may support him. I have had two pieces of campaign literature from him which strike a more moderate and reasonable note than some of the statements of the national party. I would forecast a low four figure vote. The interesting question is whether will come ahead of UKIP whose candidate has been parachuted in from Staffordshire.
An independent living in Warwick, Jim Cullinane, is on the ballot paper. Holding a masters' degree in third world politics, he appears to be an anti-politics candidate who states 'This is your opportunity to say "none of the above" without spoiling your ballot paper.' He takes a relatively libertarian line with opposition to excessive regulation. I would expect him to get no more than a few hundred votes.
Friday, 30 April 2010
Does Dave have the big mo?
Dave Cameron emerged as the winner from last night's television debate with an articilate, polished and positive performance. But does he have enough momentum to secure an overall majority or at least to be so far ahead of the Labour Party that he can govern effectively on his own given the fragmented nature of the opposition? For all Dave's relative success, it remains a three-way race, albeit with the Conservtaives in pole position. No one landed a killer blow.
Gordon Brown seemed nervous to begin with. He tried to defuse the issue of the gaffe, but responses from the 'worm' showed that this did not go down too well with viewers. He got better as he went on, but he often looked brooding and aggrieved. He floundered on defending his record. He kept returning to the issue of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems removing child tax credits for prosperous families, but if steps like this are not taken how is the deficit ever going to be reduced?
He managed to get his soundbites in on 'the same old Conservative party', which probably only plays with core Labour voters (although possibly that vote needs shoring up) and Dave Cameron and Nick Clegg both being 'a risk to the economy'. Although Dave Cameron over egged it when he talked of 'desperate stuff from a man in a desperate state', and there is evidence that voters don't like this kind of point scoring, I thought that it was an unimpressive performance by Brown.
Nick Clegg was once again personable and he held his own, although he came under some pressure on policy issues. The 'here they go again' comment addressed to his rivals didn't really work. I thought that he was right to emphasise the fairness theme as he has a real chance of picking up disillusioned Labour voters as their campaign risks imploding. Some Labour voters think that he is articulating the values that their party should be advancing.
The issue of immigration was discussed. Dave Cameron was able to convey the message that the Conservatives would be tougher on immigration, but he was still unable to specify the size of the proposed cap when pressed by Nick Clegg. As came out, 80 per cent of immigration is from the EU which created an opening for Nigel Farrage of UKIP in his post-debate comments.
I didn't really learn anything new from the debate and I certainly got no clear idea of how the deficit is going to be tackled, but then I didn't expect that. The debates have enhanced the campaign and aroused interest in the election, even if they tend to emphasise personality rather than policy. It looks as if Dave Cameron will be the next prime minister.
Gordon Brown seemed nervous to begin with. He tried to defuse the issue of the gaffe, but responses from the 'worm' showed that this did not go down too well with viewers. He got better as he went on, but he often looked brooding and aggrieved. He floundered on defending his record. He kept returning to the issue of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems removing child tax credits for prosperous families, but if steps like this are not taken how is the deficit ever going to be reduced?
He managed to get his soundbites in on 'the same old Conservative party', which probably only plays with core Labour voters (although possibly that vote needs shoring up) and Dave Cameron and Nick Clegg both being 'a risk to the economy'. Although Dave Cameron over egged it when he talked of 'desperate stuff from a man in a desperate state', and there is evidence that voters don't like this kind of point scoring, I thought that it was an unimpressive performance by Brown.
Nick Clegg was once again personable and he held his own, although he came under some pressure on policy issues. The 'here they go again' comment addressed to his rivals didn't really work. I thought that he was right to emphasise the fairness theme as he has a real chance of picking up disillusioned Labour voters as their campaign risks imploding. Some Labour voters think that he is articulating the values that their party should be advancing.
The issue of immigration was discussed. Dave Cameron was able to convey the message that the Conservatives would be tougher on immigration, but he was still unable to specify the size of the proposed cap when pressed by Nick Clegg. As came out, 80 per cent of immigration is from the EU which created an opening for Nigel Farrage of UKIP in his post-debate comments.
I didn't really learn anything new from the debate and I certainly got no clear idea of how the deficit is going to be tackled, but then I didn't expect that. The debates have enhanced the campaign and aroused interest in the election, even if they tend to emphasise personality rather than policy. It looks as if Dave Cameron will be the next prime minister.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Was this Gordon's Ed Muskie moment?
Bigotgate is all over the media this morning. I have been on local radio and Gillian's nephew has been interviewed by Radio 5. Even local television stations in Delaware have been carrying the story and yesterday live media was focused on her front door while Gordon was inside for 40 minutes, giving the door 'a door of the day' award on the BBC's campaign show. Is this one of these 24 hour media storms that will soon subside or will it be seen as a defining moment in the campaign?
I was reminded of an incident in the 1972 presidential election campaign in the US. Ed Muskie was a front runner for the Democratic nomination and would probably have made a better job of challenging Nixon than McGovern. On the stump in New Hampshire he appeared to break down and cry over accusations that he had insulted French speakers and in response to slurs on his wife. He said that he had got snowflakes in his eyes, but the damage was done. Seeing Gordon Brown with his hands over his eyes as the damaging tape was played back to him brought back the memories of Muskie.
It seems to me that this is damaging to the faltering Labour campaign on two levels. First, Gordon Brown raised the issue of character himself and this brings to the surface once again issues about his personality which have been around for years. Andrew Rawnsley was milking the story to promote his book and its relevations about Gordon's temper tantrums on the BBC campaign show last night for all he was worth.
Second, it brings to the surface the East European immigration issue which is damaging to Labour. One could argue that the wave of immigration brought in cheap, hard working employees who gave an impetus to economic growth. But many voters see competition for jobs and housing and pressure on public services. Labour could have imposed transitional arrangements as other member states did: the fact that many of them did increased the pressure on Britain as a destination, although English as a widely spoken language would have been a factor anyway. Labour are open to the charge that they closed the stable door after the horse had bolted.
I am no fan of Harriet Harman but she made a dignified attempt to defend Gordon on the campaign show last night. Her argument was that all of us have said things in private in anger or irritation that we would have regretted if the remarks had been made public. No doubt some electors will be forgiving. Others have a negative view of Gordon Brown already and these events simply reinforce that.
Labour tried to retrive the situation as best as it could and those aides who recommended a personal apology were surely correct. Gillian has hired a public relations agency and the Sun interviewed her but decided it wasn't worth pursuing the story.
In order to stop Labour's campaign imploding, Gordon Brown needs to put on a stellar performance in tonight's debate. The economy is at least an area in which he can sound authoritative, while Dave Cameron is open to attack on VAT and Nick Clegg's grasp of economics is not as sure as that of Vince Cable. For undecided voters, this is likely to be the decision point.
I was reminded of an incident in the 1972 presidential election campaign in the US. Ed Muskie was a front runner for the Democratic nomination and would probably have made a better job of challenging Nixon than McGovern. On the stump in New Hampshire he appeared to break down and cry over accusations that he had insulted French speakers and in response to slurs on his wife. He said that he had got snowflakes in his eyes, but the damage was done. Seeing Gordon Brown with his hands over his eyes as the damaging tape was played back to him brought back the memories of Muskie.
It seems to me that this is damaging to the faltering Labour campaign on two levels. First, Gordon Brown raised the issue of character himself and this brings to the surface once again issues about his personality which have been around for years. Andrew Rawnsley was milking the story to promote his book and its relevations about Gordon's temper tantrums on the BBC campaign show last night for all he was worth.
Second, it brings to the surface the East European immigration issue which is damaging to Labour. One could argue that the wave of immigration brought in cheap, hard working employees who gave an impetus to economic growth. But many voters see competition for jobs and housing and pressure on public services. Labour could have imposed transitional arrangements as other member states did: the fact that many of them did increased the pressure on Britain as a destination, although English as a widely spoken language would have been a factor anyway. Labour are open to the charge that they closed the stable door after the horse had bolted.
I am no fan of Harriet Harman but she made a dignified attempt to defend Gordon on the campaign show last night. Her argument was that all of us have said things in private in anger or irritation that we would have regretted if the remarks had been made public. No doubt some electors will be forgiving. Others have a negative view of Gordon Brown already and these events simply reinforce that.
Labour tried to retrive the situation as best as it could and those aides who recommended a personal apology were surely correct. Gillian has hired a public relations agency and the Sun interviewed her but decided it wasn't worth pursuing the story.
In order to stop Labour's campaign imploding, Gordon Brown needs to put on a stellar performance in tonight's debate. The economy is at least an area in which he can sound authoritative, while Dave Cameron is open to attack on VAT and Nick Clegg's grasp of economics is not as sure as that of Vince Cable. For undecided voters, this is likely to be the decision point.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
A wake up call
The Institute for Fiscal Studies provided a wake up call in the general election campaign yesterday. It attracted considerable media attention when it pointed out just how big the task of tackling the deficit was. Hopefully the party leaders will be pressed on this issue in Thursday's televised debate on the economy.
None of the parties will say very much about VAT but it is generally recognised that it will have to be increased to at least 18.5 per cent after the election (any further increase would have to take into account the effect on inflation). There is no scope for further increases in income tax and the use of national insurance is politically contested.
As far as expenditure cuts are concerned, both parties talk about efficiency savings, but it is by no means clear that these can be achieved, certainly in the timescale required. Labour's list of cutbacks does not add up to a fraction of what is required. Gordon Brown has been attacking the Conservatives and Lib Dems for proposing withdrawing tax credits from better off families, but unless one takes measures of this kind one isn't going to get started.
David Cameron points to the plan to increase the retirement age for men to 66 by 2016 but this will have no impact in the required timescale. It is the kind of drastic measure that would have an immediate effect because it would reduce expenditure and also make those between 65 and 66 continue to pay national insurance. It's politically explosive, of course, but the whole benefits area cannot be left alone as it would bring big savings very quickly. There would be a case for freezing all benefits except the state pension.
Read more about what the IFS has to say here: The Big Hole
None of the parties will say very much about VAT but it is generally recognised that it will have to be increased to at least 18.5 per cent after the election (any further increase would have to take into account the effect on inflation). There is no scope for further increases in income tax and the use of national insurance is politically contested.
As far as expenditure cuts are concerned, both parties talk about efficiency savings, but it is by no means clear that these can be achieved, certainly in the timescale required. Labour's list of cutbacks does not add up to a fraction of what is required. Gordon Brown has been attacking the Conservatives and Lib Dems for proposing withdrawing tax credits from better off families, but unless one takes measures of this kind one isn't going to get started.
David Cameron points to the plan to increase the retirement age for men to 66 by 2016 but this will have no impact in the required timescale. It is the kind of drastic measure that would have an immediate effect because it would reduce expenditure and also make those between 65 and 66 continue to pay national insurance. It's politically explosive, of course, but the whole benefits area cannot be left alone as it would bring big savings very quickly. There would be a case for freezing all benefits except the state pension.
Read more about what the IFS has to say here: The Big Hole
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
The Liberal Democrats surface
At last we have received a piece of election literature from the Liberal Democrats. Also, our next door neighbours have put up a Liberal Democrat signboard, the first one I have seen. It says something about the nature of their campaign in Warwick and Leamington that it does not have the candidate's name on it.
In their leaflet they try to big up their chances by suggesting that the last county council election results show that the contest could be a close finish between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives, but votes in a secondary election of that kind are no guide to a general election result. One could show similar results before 2001 and 2005 and the Lib Dems still came third.
The leaflet contains one picture of Nick Clegg and one of Clegg with Saint Vince of Cable. The candidate, Alan Beddow, emphasises that he is 'one of us', a local man, although he is not a 'townsman' as he is only lived in the area for 15 years. He promises to 'put local people first'. It would be odd if he put them second or pledged to be secretive and deceitful about his expenses rather than 'open and honest'.
He makes a great deal, as do all three candidates, about proposed fire service cuts which would involve the closure of Warwick fire station. They certainly are a major local issue as they came up on the BBC Midlands TV panel debate in the constituency. All three candidates are against them, but none can directly affect the decision as it rests with the Conservative controlled county council.
Another local issue mentioned is protecting the green belt against developers, while it is argued that 'Our NHS' is 'at risk with the Conservatives'. The candidate is pictured with a nurse at Warwick Hospital and an unspecified person who could well be one of the dread health service administrators (whose wages only account for 3 per cent of the NHS budget).
I didn't think the leaflet was as well designed as those of Conserative or Labour: it was over crowded with too much information.
What is interesting is whether the lack of any substantial Liberal Democrat campaign in the constituency will undermine their local vote. National poll evidence suggests that the Lib Dem vote is softer than that of the two main parties and more reliant on younger voters who tend to be less reliable in terms of turning up and voting (despite a late surge in registration).
In their leaflet they try to big up their chances by suggesting that the last county council election results show that the contest could be a close finish between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives, but votes in a secondary election of that kind are no guide to a general election result. One could show similar results before 2001 and 2005 and the Lib Dems still came third.
The leaflet contains one picture of Nick Clegg and one of Clegg with Saint Vince of Cable. The candidate, Alan Beddow, emphasises that he is 'one of us', a local man, although he is not a 'townsman' as he is only lived in the area for 15 years. He promises to 'put local people first'. It would be odd if he put them second or pledged to be secretive and deceitful about his expenses rather than 'open and honest'.
He makes a great deal, as do all three candidates, about proposed fire service cuts which would involve the closure of Warwick fire station. They certainly are a major local issue as they came up on the BBC Midlands TV panel debate in the constituency. All three candidates are against them, but none can directly affect the decision as it rests with the Conservative controlled county council.
Another local issue mentioned is protecting the green belt against developers, while it is argued that 'Our NHS' is 'at risk with the Conservatives'. The candidate is pictured with a nurse at Warwick Hospital and an unspecified person who could well be one of the dread health service administrators (whose wages only account for 3 per cent of the NHS budget).
I didn't think the leaflet was as well designed as those of Conserative or Labour: it was over crowded with too much information.
What is interesting is whether the lack of any substantial Liberal Democrat campaign in the constituency will undermine their local vote. National poll evidence suggests that the Lib Dem vote is softer than that of the two main parties and more reliant on younger voters who tend to be less reliable in terms of turning up and voting (despite a late surge in registration).
Monday, 26 April 2010
Choose your own cuts
The phoney election goes on and pundits study the range of permutations in a hung Parliament. But whoever eventually holds office, they will have to make some brutal cuts in public expenditure and some tax increases as well if they want to halve the deficit. For example, they would have to cut public sector pay by 5 per cent, freeze all benefits for a year, means test child benefit and stop all school building. And that's just for starters: Cuts
Choose your own cuts using the FT's interactive deficit-bsuter tool here: Deficit
Choose your own cuts using the FT's interactive deficit-bsuter tool here: Deficit
Sunday, 25 April 2010
An incumbency effect?
The conventional wisdom is that personal votes don't count for much in British elections, although they might matter more in Northern Ireland or for incumbent Lib Dem and Nationalist MPs.
However, in the latest Economist Bagehot suggests that it may matter more in the wake of the expenses scandal. 'More than in previous campaigns, it seems, Britons want to know who, precisely, is asking for their vote ... this campaign is uniquely presidential and intensely local.'
James Plaskitt was elected as MP for Warwick and Leamington in 1997. He was educated at Oxford and was a politics lecturer there and at Brunel. He subsequently worked for consultants Oxford Analytica for whom many academics (including myself) undertake work.
He became leader of the Labour group on Oxfordshire County Council and contested the safe Conservative seat of Witney in 1992.
James Plaskitt has been an assiduous constituency caseworker and this is reflected in his campaign literature where he claims to be 'the stronger voice'. A strong Labour loyalist, he was eventually rewarded with a post on the lowest rank of the ministerial ladder as a 'pussy' in Work and Pensions. He was given something of a bed of nails with responsibility for the Child Support Agency and he was eventually let go in a reshuffle. There was some vague talk in one of his columns in the local press about some other post which would require legislation but nothing ever came of it. Some constituents have expressed disappointment to me that a Warwick and Leamington MP has not made a greater impact.
The literature I have seen emphasises the need to 'Secure the Recovery'. On the cover are a picture of the MP with what are presumably two apprentices, emphasising the skills building element of the Labour approach. Most of the internal matter is about the economy and public services, but a constituent also gives a testimony to Plaskitt's hard work. Voters are urged not to let Dave Cameron endanger a fragile recovery.
James Plaskitt has not been tarnished by the expenses scandal. He has issued a series of regular letters to constituents on policy areas in which they are interested, but I found these rather uninspiring. They were essentially long lists of legislative measures undertaken by the Government. Passing a piece of legislation does not solve a problem, indeed one could argue that there is too much legislation and we need to move away from the legislative factory approach (which the EU has tried to do, admittedly with limited success).
I think that voters expect constituency casework as a given these days. Plaskitt has not been high profile enough to generate a big personal vote, but he may pick up some votes from grateful constituents whose problems have been solved. But not many.
However, in the latest Economist Bagehot suggests that it may matter more in the wake of the expenses scandal. 'More than in previous campaigns, it seems, Britons want to know who, precisely, is asking for their vote ... this campaign is uniquely presidential and intensely local.'
James Plaskitt was elected as MP for Warwick and Leamington in 1997. He was educated at Oxford and was a politics lecturer there and at Brunel. He subsequently worked for consultants Oxford Analytica for whom many academics (including myself) undertake work.
He became leader of the Labour group on Oxfordshire County Council and contested the safe Conservative seat of Witney in 1992.
James Plaskitt has been an assiduous constituency caseworker and this is reflected in his campaign literature where he claims to be 'the stronger voice'. A strong Labour loyalist, he was eventually rewarded with a post on the lowest rank of the ministerial ladder as a 'pussy' in Work and Pensions. He was given something of a bed of nails with responsibility for the Child Support Agency and he was eventually let go in a reshuffle. There was some vague talk in one of his columns in the local press about some other post which would require legislation but nothing ever came of it. Some constituents have expressed disappointment to me that a Warwick and Leamington MP has not made a greater impact.
The literature I have seen emphasises the need to 'Secure the Recovery'. On the cover are a picture of the MP with what are presumably two apprentices, emphasising the skills building element of the Labour approach. Most of the internal matter is about the economy and public services, but a constituent also gives a testimony to Plaskitt's hard work. Voters are urged not to let Dave Cameron endanger a fragile recovery.
James Plaskitt has not been tarnished by the expenses scandal. He has issued a series of regular letters to constituents on policy areas in which they are interested, but I found these rather uninspiring. They were essentially long lists of legislative measures undertaken by the Government. Passing a piece of legislation does not solve a problem, indeed one could argue that there is too much legislation and we need to move away from the legislative factory approach (which the EU has tried to do, admittedly with limited success).
I think that voters expect constituency casework as a given these days. Plaskitt has not been high profile enough to generate a big personal vote, but he may pick up some votes from grateful constituents whose problems have been solved. But not many.
Saturday, 24 April 2010
Dave in lead as Lib Dems lose big mo
The latest YouGov poll puts the Conservatives on 34 per cent, Labour on 29 per cent and the Lib Dems on 28 per cent. This suggests, not surprisingly, that the Lib Dem surge has ended and that it may start to fade, although some of the boost will remain. However, this lead would not be enough to give Dave Cameron an overall majority, although it would create a difficult situation for the Lib Dems after the election. Would they deny office to the party with the largest number of votes and seats?
Friday, 23 April 2010
Tories may fall short by 48 seats
An interesting report here which suggests that the Conservatives will end up as the largest party in the Commons after the general election, but 48 seats short of an absolute majority with the Lib Dems on just under 100 seats: Election
It's a very fluid situation and there's everything to play for. Lib Dem support may turn out to be very soft. But there is a slight touch of panic creeping into statements from some Conservatives with talk of 'two weeks to save the Conservative Party'. The fear is that a hung Parliament could lead to a change in the electoral system which would permanently disadvantage the Conservatives.
It's a very fluid situation and there's everything to play for. Lib Dem support may turn out to be very soft. But there is a slight touch of panic creeping into statements from some Conservatives with talk of 'two weeks to save the Conservative Party'. The fear is that a hung Parliament could lead to a change in the electoral system which would permanently disadvantage the Conservatives.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Still a 3-way race
Polls following last night's television debate show pretty much a three-way split in terms of who won. Some put Dave Cameron ahead, others put Nick Clegg in front. All of them put Gordon Brown in third place, although he improved his ratings from the previous debate. No one delivered a knockout blow and there is still everything to play for in the last debate.
Dave Cameron was more relaxed and focused than in the previous debate, although sometimes his attempts to sound prime ministerial put him on the sidelines a little. He was probably at his strongest in Europe, although the inability of the Conservatives to deliver a referendum on the Lisbon treaty was a weak point. He also clearly felt a little awkward about some of his allies in the European Parliament. However, he scored some points against Labour making false claims about Conservative policies in leaflets (one of these distributed in Gordon Brown's own constituency according to Alex Salmond later). Brown said that he had not authorised the leaflets and the Conservatives are clearly going to press on this question today.
Nick Clegg held his ground well, gave a confident performance and once again addressed members of the audience more directly than the other two. He was perhaps in greatest difficulty over Trident where Dave Cameron said 'I agree with Gordon' and Gordon Brown urged Clegg to 'get real'. It was not clear what the Lib Dem policy was, other than to have a wide ranging defence review after the election which any party could and should hold. He managed to put Dave under some pressure over immigration by pressing him on what his cap actually was.
Gordon Brown managed to get in his soundbite about Dave being 'a risk to the economy' more than once. He also referred to Cameron's policies being a 'big society at home, little Britain abroad'. (Once again we heard little from Dave about the 'big society' except in his opening statement). Brown's charge that Clegg was 'anti-American', repeated twice, was a little odd: what Clegg is asking for is a different kind of relationship with the United States. At times Brown sounded a bit clunky, as when when he addressed a pensioner questioner on the lines of 'women, and you are a woman.'
One of the trickiest questions was about the Pope's visit to Britain and the failings and policies of the Catholic church. I thought that all three leaders answered this well, but also it was the point when Gordon Brown came across most authentically when he talked about his Presbyterian values. This is much more effective than reciting figures or listing the policies put in place.
The Lib Dems have failed to get the momentum which get them towards 35 per cent in the polls and the chance of winning a really significant number of seats. At the moment Labour is losing the campaign but the Conservatives are not really winning it or brushing off the Lib Dem challenge.
Dave Cameron was more relaxed and focused than in the previous debate, although sometimes his attempts to sound prime ministerial put him on the sidelines a little. He was probably at his strongest in Europe, although the inability of the Conservatives to deliver a referendum on the Lisbon treaty was a weak point. He also clearly felt a little awkward about some of his allies in the European Parliament. However, he scored some points against Labour making false claims about Conservative policies in leaflets (one of these distributed in Gordon Brown's own constituency according to Alex Salmond later). Brown said that he had not authorised the leaflets and the Conservatives are clearly going to press on this question today.
Nick Clegg held his ground well, gave a confident performance and once again addressed members of the audience more directly than the other two. He was perhaps in greatest difficulty over Trident where Dave Cameron said 'I agree with Gordon' and Gordon Brown urged Clegg to 'get real'. It was not clear what the Lib Dem policy was, other than to have a wide ranging defence review after the election which any party could and should hold. He managed to put Dave under some pressure over immigration by pressing him on what his cap actually was.
Gordon Brown managed to get in his soundbite about Dave being 'a risk to the economy' more than once. He also referred to Cameron's policies being a 'big society at home, little Britain abroad'. (Once again we heard little from Dave about the 'big society' except in his opening statement). Brown's charge that Clegg was 'anti-American', repeated twice, was a little odd: what Clegg is asking for is a different kind of relationship with the United States. At times Brown sounded a bit clunky, as when when he addressed a pensioner questioner on the lines of 'women, and you are a woman.'
One of the trickiest questions was about the Pope's visit to Britain and the failings and policies of the Catholic church. I thought that all three leaders answered this well, but also it was the point when Gordon Brown came across most authentically when he talked about his Presbyterian values. This is much more effective than reciting figures or listing the policies put in place.
The Lib Dems have failed to get the momentum which get them towards 35 per cent in the polls and the chance of winning a really significant number of seats. At the moment Labour is losing the campaign but the Conservatives are not really winning it or brushing off the Lib Dem challenge.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
The Lib Dem surge
Is it a shooting star or an asteroid that will wipe out the dinosaur 'old' parties (leaving aside the fact that the Lib Dems have one of the longest histories of any party)? Much depends on the two remaining television debates which will be the defining events of the general election.
I think there will be some slippage as Lib Dem policies become widely known, but most voters are influenced by overall images rather than detailed proposals. However, much of the additional support will be retained. They seem to be doing particularly well among young people so if they can mobilise them to vote overall turnout could go up. It will also be boosted by the closeness of the contest.
The volcanic ash cloud has not contributed to Labour's reputation for competence. Naval aramads have turned out to be one ship and fleets of coaches have proved hard to organised. The Lib Dems could get more votes than them, but far fewer seats.
I think there will be some slippage as Lib Dem policies become widely known, but most voters are influenced by overall images rather than detailed proposals. However, much of the additional support will be retained. They seem to be doing particularly well among young people so if they can mobilise them to vote overall turnout could go up. It will also be boosted by the closeness of the contest.
The volcanic ash cloud has not contributed to Labour's reputation for competence. Naval aramads have turned out to be one ship and fleets of coaches have proved hard to organised. The Lib Dems could get more votes than them, but far fewer seats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)