Europe vote to teach Westminster an ‘expense-ive’ lesson
Civitas, 3 June 2009
When ballots are cast in tomorrow’s European Parliament (EP) elections, most voters will be sending a message to one destination: Westminster, and not Brussels, writes Luke Clark. A month ago, Labour’s concerns centred upon voters’ unhappiness with the government leading to abstention and gains for UKIP, the Greens and BNP in a sort of apathetic protest vote. The expenses scandal has shifted the ground in Westminster, leaving the situation more ambiguous.
There are indications that voters’ desire to punish the ‘Big Three’ UK parties may actually lead to a higher turnout. A recent TNS poll showed that turnout across the EU may actually rise this time to 49%, compared with just under 46% in 2004. And in Britain there are signs of a similar shift. A poll commissioned by The Times in early May indicated that only 34 per cent of people intended to vote, a further drop from the 38% UK turnout in 2004. The newspaper’s latest poll, conducted at the end of May, shows the number intending to vote has jumped to 41%.
However, the public are expected to express their anger by eschewing the big three. Over these few short weeks in May the poll also shows that the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour lost 21% in voting intentions for the EP elections, with UKIP, the Greens, BNP and Others picking up 23%. All this points towards a more ‘active’ protest vote. UKIP looks set to improve on their 2004 result and it might turn out to be ‘the’ winner from the expenses scandal quite possibly coming second behind the Tories. The Greens are also expected to improve on their performance at the 2004 election, but the BNP may fall just short of the 7-8% threshold necessary for the election of a candidate.
The 2009 EP campaign has taken place in the context of Britain’s worst recession in decades, presided over by an unpopular government at precisely the moment when public support for parties of the Westminster establishment has reached an all time low. In such circumstances, the campaign has had little to do with European issues and has failed to engage the public in a debate about the future of Europe. One of the few genuinely European issues to attract media attention during the campaign has been the Conservative’s stance on a Lisbon Treaty referendum after the next general election, even if the Treaty has been approved by all other EU member states. This raised a few eyebrows, as did news of proposals to comprehensively reform of the EU’s Fisheries Policy by 2012, and the Conservatives’ determination to form a new grouping in the EP. However, with the torrent of scandal flowing from Westminster, these arguments failed to spark a wider debate on Europe.
An €18m EP-backed campaign to focus debate on the ‘major policy choices confronting the EU’ appears to have had little effect across the EU. Italy’s campaign has morphed into a form of plebiscite on the leadership of Silvio Berlusconi who is in the process of a very public divorce. The French EP campaign has, for the most part, been a continuation of domestic debates on social protection, unemployment and the leadership of President Sarkozy. In recession hit Ireland, polls predict that an angry electorate will lead send the governing Fianna Fáil party to the worst result in its 85-year history, while the campaign in Germany is widely seen as a test-run for a general election later this year.
In essence, the EP election in the UK– this year more than most – is being seen through the national prism. The election will be seen as an indicator of the current state of domestic politics; measuring the unpopularity of Labour and the Prime Minister, the level of disaffection amongst the white working class drawn to the BNP, the public readiness to support a resurgent Conservative Party and the level of public anger over the MPs’ expenses scandal. The 2009 campaign has done little to transform the nature of EP elections, characterised by EU expert Andrew Moravcsik as “decentralized, apathetic affairs, in which a relatively small number of voters select among national parties on the basis on national issues.”
David Green, commenting in the Daily Telegraph on 28 May, is right that there are much deeper issues to the expenses scandal than simply how MPs are remunerated. It has always been known that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. We have just had twelve years being governed by monkeys, and it is indeed time to change the system.
However I cannot see how you would attract anyone of calibre into politics if they had no ambition to run the country and make things better, as I genuinely believe MPs do. The problems are lack of calibre and lack of experience, as you say.
To overcome these I suggest three reforms. First, MPs should be paid at the rate they were earning prior to entering parliament, so that they neither gain nor lose upon doing so. This would favour those who have already built up successful careers and experience to offer. Ministerial and any other salary uplifts on this should be funded by their parties.
Second, political parties should receive some funding proportional to the votes they poll. Independents and MPs who lose their party’s whip would receive this income directly.
And third, I think we would do better concentrating on a separation between policy formulation and executive functions. The departments of state would deal with the former, and a Director General of Public Services should be appointed to provide the services sanctioned by Parliament. He in turn would appoint a board of Directors General for each of the public services, i.e. the police, prisons and probation, immigration, social services, the NHS, education, higher education etc. Someone such as Sir Gerry Robinson would do a splendid job of this I am sure.
Peter, perhaps the 3 major conspiritors, i.e. Lib, Lab, Con, realise that they are in for a drubbing.
It is a pity that the MP’s tax avoidance, nay expenses, scandle will overshadow some very major issues as we go to the polls today.
I reffer to immigration, sorry can’t metion that, it’s racist, multiculturism, sorry cant mention that either, I.D. cards, if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear. Well i have not, so i will. Brtians relationship with the EU, can’t mention that, for fear of the xenophobe accusation. So looks like the Honourable members dishonourable conduct is the only game in town at the ballot box. Todays vote will just be a protest vote. But and this is a big but (and i dont mean bouyonce knowles the singers big butt) do you really think that the current political establishment will get it, that they will understand that there is unhappiness in the camp, and it is more than just the political class avoiding taxation that has upset the campers. No because those that are immune from the everyday toils and troubles of the plebs are also arrogant. Arrogance and humility can not exist in the same space, and you need humility to understand the needs, wants, hates and, aspirations of your fellow compatriot. And maybe the phrase “that democracy changes nothing” will prove to be true, time will tell.
I don’t know if it’s significant, but the only election posters I have seen in Bournemouth – my home town – over the past couple of weeks have been for UKIP.
Great oaks from little acorns grow?