DOCSLIB.ORG

The General Election, 2015 Transcript

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The General Election, 2015 Transcript The General Election, 2015 Transcript Date: Tuesday, 19 May 2015 - 6:00PM Location: Museum of London 19 May 2015 The General Election, 2015 Professor Vernon Bogdanor Ladies and gentlemen, this is the last of six lectures on significant post-War General Elections, but in the autumn, for those who want more punishment, I will begin another series of six lectures on post-War political crises, the first of which will analyse the crisis in the National Health Service in 1951, which divided the Labour Party and which has, I believe, many echoes today. But this lecture is on the recent General Election. The outcome was, of course, unexpected, unexpected perhaps even by the victorious Conservatives themselves. It is said that the bookmakers did very badly from it, losing money to those who had made large bets on the Conservatives at favourable odds. It is said the only people from whom they made money were the pollsters and the political scientists. Now, I was often asked before the Election who I thought would win, and I answered “I haven’t the faintest idea, and nor really has anyone else.” And perhaps some commentators now wish that they had said the same. In the Election, the Conservatives gained 25 seats net from 2010, and around 0.9% of the vote, so the Conservatives increased their share of the vote and also their number of seats, and that is the first time in modern history that a Prime Minister has ever achieved both after a full-term in office. No Prime Minister in modern times has ever done that before. It is a remarkable achievement on the part of David Cameron. His nearest competitor is Lord Salisbury, who, in 1900, secured a higher share of the vote than in 1895, but nine fewer seats. Now, despite that, the Government has a majority of just 12, in practice, 16, since four Sinn Fein Nationalists from Northern Ireland do not take their seats. This is the lowest majority of any Government since October 1974, when Labour had a majority of just three. The Coalition Government of 2010-15 had a majority of 78. And, to the extent that stability depends on the size of the majority, the overall majority of 2015 could be less stable than the Hung Parliament of 2010 because of course, with a majority of 16, any nine rebellious backbenchers could undermine the Government, and that experience happened to the last Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, who, in 1992, had a majority of 21, which caused him great difficulty in ratifying the Maastricht Treaty. John Major used to say that, of those 21, at least 13 were quite mad. These conflicts could occur again, especially of course upon the issue of the European Union, which is going to be very important in the first half of this Parliament and which will be very divisive. As you can see, the Conservatives are 6.5% ahead of Labour, and in the past, that would have given the Conservatives a much larger majority. But part of the reason why the Conservative majority is not large, not the whole reason but part of the reason, is that the boundaries are out-of-date and favour the Labour Party, and equalising the boundaries, which the Conservatives intend to do, would give them around 20 extra seats. But Margaret Thatcher, who, in 1979, got only a slightly greater lead than Cameron, had a comfortable majority of 43. Edward Heath, who had half Cameron’s lead, had a comfortable majority of 30, and Harold Macmillan, who had a smaller lead than Cameron, had a majority of 100, and Anthony Eden, who had around half Cameron’s lead, had a majority of 58. The Conservatives have a majority of seats only in England. For the first time ever in British history, there are different majorities in each component part of the United Kingdom. In Wales, Labour is the majority party, and the Conservatives there gained just over a quarter of the vote, very far from a majority. In Scotland, the SNP are the majority party, and the Conservatives have around 15% of the vote, one-seventh of the vote, and just one MP. These are the lowest percentages of the vote in Wales and Scotland of any Government since the War. In Northern Ireland, none of the three parties had been able to win seats - indeed, Labour and the Liberal Democrats do not contest seats there - since the conflict is not between different visions of Britain’s economic and social future, but between different and competing national identities, British and Irish, and voters who feel that their identity is primarily British vote for unionist parties, primarily the Democratic Unionist Party, voters who feel that their identity is primarily Irish vote for national parties, Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour Party, and the majority party in Northern Ireland is the Democratic Unionist Party. These different majorities in different parts of the United Kingdom show very clearly that Britain has become a multinational state, and what had previously been seen as one nation representing different kinds of people is now seen as a union of different nations, each with its own identity and institutions, and in this multinational and quasi-federal state, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own party systems, quite distinct from those in England. So, this multinational state has a multi-party system and is unlikely to return in the foreseeable future to the standard pattern of two party Conservative and Labour competition. Now, the Labour Party won 232 seats, 26 fewer than in 2010, and 99 fewer seats than the Conservatives, and that is the furthest it has been behind the Conservatives since 1987. The Party made a net gain of 15 seats in England, mainly in London, but lost 40 seats in Scotland, all but one of its Scottish seats, to the SNP, and also lost one in Wales to the Conservatives. There was a miniscule net swing to Labour of around 0.2%. Labour gained around 1.4% of the vote from its historic low of 2010, its second-worst result ever. The Conservatives gained 0.8% of their 2010 vote. It is a paradox that the small increase in the Conservative vote led to a gain of 24 seats, while the larger increase in the Labour vote led to a loss of 26 seats, and the reason for this is that, contrary to expectation – or at least one of the reasons, that, contrary to expectations, more Labour votes seem to have been wasted than Conservative. Most of Labour’s votes in Scotland were wasted since came second almost everywhere, and many of Labour’s votes in Conservative/Labour marginal seats in England were also wasted. Labour had hoped that much of the 2010 Liberal Democrat vote would come to it. Some of it did, but the consequence in some seats was paradoxically to help the Conservatives and increase the number of wasted votes. For example, in the typical Liberal Democrat seat in the West Country, Labour was a bad third. In the past, some Labour voters had supported the Liberal Democrats on tactical grounds to keep out the Conservatives. In 2015, many such voters decided they could no longer support the Liberal Democrats since that Party had entered into coalition with the Conservatives, so they returned to Labour. The result was that Labour came a better third, but the Conservatives won the seat, so the higher Labour vote was wasted. Although Labour’s vote was slightly higher in 2015 than 2010, it seems to me, nevertheless, that this defeat was, in many respects, worse for Labour because, in 2010, Labour had the excuses, if you like, that it had been in power for 13 years, that it was perhaps exhausted, and it had to cope with economic crash of 2008, for which many voters blamed it. In 2015, there were no such excuses. Now, some have compared the outcome with that in 1992, which was another unexpected victory for the Conservatives, but 2015 seems to me worse because, although the Conservatives won the 1992 Election, against expectations, they were then on a withdrawing tide after four Election victories. They in fact lost 40 seats, admittedly insufficient to destroy their overall majority, but sufficient to reduce it from 102 to 21. But in 2015, it seems that the Conservatives are on a rising tide and that they are gaining seats after just one term in office. There are only two post-War Elections at which Labour won fewer seats than in 2015 and they were the Elections of 1983 and 1987, both fought against Margaret Thatcher at the height of her power. But at least, in that period, Labour had the security of safe seats in Scotland and the North of England, and that is no longer so. The supposedly safe seats in Scotland have been won by the SNP, while the safe seats in the North of England are now under threat from UKIP, which came second in 48 Labour seats, 19 of them in the North, and that is dangerous for Labour since UKIP is a more acceptable alternative for many traditional Labour voters than the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. And it seems, in contrast to many predictions, that UKIP damaged Labour more than it did the Conservatives, which Conservative defectors seem to have returned to their Party in larger numbers than Labour defectors did. In the last 40 years, just one man has won an Election for Labour, Tony Blair, though he has become a pariah in some Labour circles, who have seemingly never forgiven him for this.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jo Swinson: the New Liberal Democrat Leader
    Jo Swinson: the new Liberal Democrat Leader 22 July 2019 Who is Jo Swinson? Jo Swinson was born in 1980, growing up and going to school in East Dunbartonshire, which she now represents in Parliament. Her mother was a primary school teacher while her father worked in economic development. She cites her earliest political experience as signing petitions against animal testing in the Body Shop. A Liberal Democrat supporter since she was at school, Jo joined the Liberal Democrats aged 17, while studying Management at the LSE. During her time at university, she worked as a Research Assistant for the Employers’ Forum on Disability. After graduating, Swinson moved to Hull, working as Viking FM’s Marketing & PR Manager. Aged 21, she stood against John Prescott at the 2001 general election in Hull East. Relocating back to Scotland, she worked as Marketing Manager for SpaceandPeople Plc and then as Communications Officer for the UK Public Health Association prior to her election as an MP. In 2011, she married Duncan Hames, who was the Liberal Democrat MP for Chippenham from 2010 to 2015, and is now an anti-corruption campaigner. The couple have two sons. What is Jo Swinson’s political background? Swinson was successfully elected to Parliament in 2005, winning East Dunbartonshire from Labour. In the Commons, she became a Lib Dem whip and spokesperson for culture, media and sport, before being promoted to Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland in 2006. Swinson gained additional responsibility in 2007 becoming Shadow Women and Equality Minister. She returned to the backbenches later that year, before becoming Shadow Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in 2008, retaining this role until the 2010 election.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations on Energy for the Liberal Democrat
    Recommendations on Energy for the Liberal Democrat 2015 Election Campaigning from the Green Lib Dem Policy Group The Liberal Democrats have done more to put sound environmental policies into practice than any other UK Party. As Green Liberal Democrats we wish to help maintain that status and help the Party exploit it in election campaigning. To do that we need to alert the general public to the importance of environmental issues and inform them of our policies and achievement in this area. A significant portion of our vote comes from the environmentally aware. It is therefore important that we give enough prominence to our green credentials, and that we defend ourselves from the efforts to detract from them, whether by the Green Party with the intention of taking our votes, or by the well-intentioned. The student fees fiasco illustrated the importance of publically addressing criticism with reasoned argument and of providing campaigners with the facts they need to counter doorstep criticism. The failure to give a timely explanation why our MPs voted as they did, and what the students gained as a result, not only lost us vast numbers of council seats, it also enabled our opponents to continue to portray us as untrustworthy. Introduction to our Energy Policy Combating Climate Change, while maintaining quality of life and the environment, is our overriding principle. Hence our policy aims are to Reduce Carbon dioxide emissions. Maintain a secure energy supply. Support a sustainable and a healthy economy. Target achieving a near Zero Carbon Economy by 2050, with Zero Carbon Electricity by 2020 as an intermediate target.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • The Andrew Marr Show” Must Be Credited If Any Part of This Transcript Is Used
    PLEASE NOTE “THE ANDREW MARR SHOW” MUST BE CREDITED IF ANY PART OF THIS TRANSCRIPT IS USED THE ANDREW MARR SHOW INTERVIEW: TIM FARRON, MP PRESIDENT, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS FEBRUARY 5th 2012 ANDREW MARR: The Liberal Democrats have a direct role in government of course for the first time since … well since the party was founded. However, their individual identity and their separate policies have been, I think it’s fair to say, rather overshadowed by the Conservatives who form the larger part of the coalition. The most outspoken Lib Dem sitting at the cabinet table, a man quite prepared to lock horns with the Prime Minister or the Chancellor, was the Energy Secretary Chris Huhne, so what does his departure to prepare for his court appearance mean for his party and the government? The President of the Lib Dems, Tim Farron, is in Cumbria. Good morning, Tim. It looks formidably cold there, so thank you for coming out. TIM FARRON: Oh this is normal, Andrew. ANDREW MARR: Okay. Let me start with some politics as normal. A lot of hostility building up for instance to wind farms at the moment, one of Chris Huhne’s key policies. Do you think that his departure from government is going to blunt the climate change agenda that the Liberal Democrats have been so enthusiastic about? 1 TIM FARRON: Well no, it definitely isn’t. Ed Davey is an outstanding environmentalist and one with years track record in fighting on green issues - absolutely the right person to take over in the job. That doesn’t mean we won’t miss Chris Huhne.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter from Ed Davey MP 11.03.21
    Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP The Prime Minister 10 Downing Street London, SW1A 2AA 11th March 2021 Dear Prime Minister, I am writing to share my concerns about the draft resolution on Sri Lanka that the FCDO has tabled for approval by the UN Human Rights Council on 24th March. Time and again, the UK has played a vital role in leading collective action on international accountability in Sri Lanka. At the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council, which is currently underway, the UK has a real opportunity to continue in this proud tradition. But unfortunately, the draft resolution completely fails to rise to this challenge. As it stands, the draft resolution is too vague and lacks robust commitment to international accountability mechanisms. It also fails to incorporate the recommendations laid out in the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ report on Sri Lanka that was published earlier this year. The High Commissioner portrayed a damning picture of the situation in Sri Lanka, making it clear that domestic mechanisms for reconciliation, accountability and human rights have drastically eroded in the past few years. Many Tamil groups across the UK have been calling on your Government to take urgent action to ensure that the UN Human Rights Council resolution is robust enough to ensure that those responsible are held accountable for crimes and human rights abuses committed against the Tamils. I am aware that the Sri Lanka Core Group will be meeting imminently, to discuss the draft resolution. As such, I am urging you to personally ensure that
    [Show full text]
  • Where Next for the Liberal Democrats?
    Where next for the Liberal Democrats? Tim Bale Aron Cheung Alan Wager It has, to put it mildly, been a difficult twelve months for the Liberal Democrats. A year ago this week, polling conducted by YouGov and Ipsos Mori showed their support at 20% – a level the party had not enjoyed since they’d entered their ill-fated coalition with the Conservatives in the spring of 2010. Nine long years later, they were daring to dream once again: could it be that, under Jo Swinson, we would soon see the UK’s electoral map coloured with the same amount of Lib Dem yellow that Charles Kennedy and, latterly, Nick Clegg had once achieved? The answer, of course, was no. The general election that followed was a not just an electoral disappointment but a disaster – so much so that Swinson herself lost her seat. Not only that, but the party’s main policy aim – to reverse the Brexit decision – lay in tatters. Yet, despite these setbacks, the new electoral geography of the post-Brexit era brings with it challenges but also opportunities for the Liberal Democrats – existential questions but also, if they can exploit their new electoral coalition, some potential answers. This short paper hopes to set all this out just as ballots open for the party’s new leader. Putting the 2019 result in historical context The eleven seats the Liberal Democrats won in December 2019 may have represented a slight decline on the dozen the party achieved in 2017 under Tim Farron; but they also represented a near-halving of the 21 which, following multiple defections, the party went into the general election defending.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Futures Network Paper No. 13
    Energy Futures Network Paper No. 13 The first 100 days of Conservative energy policy Dieter Helm Professor of Energy Policy University of Oxford 20th August 2015 Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, has had a very busy start. She has ended new subsidies for onshore wind, reined back the Green Deal, removed the exemption from tax for renewables, ended the zero- carbon homes plan, removed guaranteed subsidy for biomass, borne down on solar PV subsidies, speeded up the rules on fracking planning process, and at the same time fully come in behind the Paris climate negotiations and the UK’s commitment to tackling carbon emissions. For some in the green lobby, this smacks at best of inconsistency and at worst it is disingenuous – saying one thing, and doing another. Unsurprising Renewables UK, the powerful and vocal lobby group, has screamed about the scale back of the subsidies its members have to date so effectively campaigned for. It claimed that Rudd’s commitment to tacking climate change was “like saying you want to win the Tour de France on a bike without wheels”. So what can we learn from the first 100 days of Conservative energy policy? Does it add up to a coherent framework, or is it just ad hoc and made up as the new government has been going along? The case for the initial changes 1 Energy Futures Network Paper No. 13 The Conservatives inherited a mess, partly of their own making during the Coalition. Energy policy has for almost a decade been dominated by the framework laid down by Ed Milliband in 2008, and faithfully followed through by Chris Huhne and Ed Davey – what might be called MHD.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of UK Political Leadership on the Environment Since the 2010
    A review of UK political leadership on the environment since the 2010 general election GREEN STANDARD 2013 Green Standard 2013 © Green Alliance 2013 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- A review of UK political leadership on the Noncommercial-No derivative works environment since the 2010 general election 3.0 unported licence. This does not replace copyright but gives certain by: rights without having to ask Green Alliance for permission. Campaign for Better Transport, Friends of the Under this licence, this work may Earth, Greenpeace, Green Alliance, RSPB, The be shared freely. It provides the Wildlife Trusts and WWF. freedom to copy, distribute and transmit this work on to others, provided text is unaltered. This work Acknowledgements must not be resold or used for Thanks to the following individuals for their input: commercial purposes. These Richard Benwell, Ruth Davis, Penny Evans, conditions can be waived under certain circumstances with the written Andrew Farmer, Joss Garman, Owen Gibbons, permission of Green Alliance. For Alastair Harper, Richard Hebditch, Stephen more information about this licence Hinchley, Donna Hume, Liz Hutchins, Harry go to http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Huyton, Elaine King, Hannah Kyrke-Smith, Gareth Morgan, Doug Parr, Andrew Pendleton, Hazel Phillips, Ellie Robinson, George Smeeton, Ben Stafford and Matt Trimmer. Published by Green Alliance September 2013 ISBN 978-1-905869-96-1 Green Alliance 36 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 0RE T 020 7233 7433 [email protected] www.green-alliance.org.uk blog: greenallianceblog.org.uk twitter: @GreenAllianceUK The Green Alliance Trust Registered charity no.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Autumn Conference
    ONLINE AUTUMN CONFERENCE 2021 17-20 SEPTEMBER DIRECTORY NEU Network Help us shape the future of education: be part of the National Education Union Councillor network. Being a member of our network will give you: > Access to written briefings. > Regular information about education issues. > Access to our events for councillors. The NEU Councillors Network is open to councillors from all political parties. The Network is now over 4,000 members strong. Join our Network at neu.org.uk/councillors-network or by scanning the QR code e [email protected] @neucllrs @NEUCllrs NEU2258/0721 NEU2258 Lib Dem advert 2 FP.indd 1 26/07/2021 13:42 CONFERENCE DIRECTORY 1 Welcome to the Liberal Democrat Online Autumn 2021 Conference Directory. Please note that the Conference Directory is available online only and not in hard copy format. Updates to the Conference Directory will be issued periodically up until conference and published online at: www.libdems.org.uk/a21-directory For details of the main auditorium sessions, see the separate Conference Agenda, available at: www.libdems.org.uk/a21-agenda Further information, registration and conference publications (including plain text and clear print versions) are available at: www.libdems.org.uk/conference Contents Feature: 2–3 Welcome to our online Autumn Conference from Ed Davey MP and Mark Pack Conference information: 4–9 Exhibition: 11–15 Fringe and training: 16–65 Friday 17 September 19 Saturday 18 September 27 Sunday 19 September 46 Monday 20 September 59 Autumn 2021 Directory vsn 2 Published and promoted by Mike Dixon on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, 1 Vincent Square, London, SW1P 2PN.
    [Show full text]
  • New Leader, New Book
    I loved every minute of the nine vote, even if a second preference, to months of the mayoral campaign. I support a Liberal Democrat for the was blessed with a small but amazing first time. We won four seats in the team, from Ashley Lumsden, who was Greater London Assembly and born to be a campaign manager, to because of the calibre of our candi- Charlotte Barraclough, who had dates they are influencing events well never done media until she aban- beyond their numbers, effectively doned a round-the-world trip to run holding the balance of power. my press operation. My son Jonathan There will never be an election like dropped out of university (temporar- this again. Next time it will be a short ily) to be my minder, and student campaign with limited appearances, interns became the backbone of our more conventional and, I suspect, less operations. Brian Orrell and the filled with surprises. Livingstone will London Region Liberal Democrats, try to remain Mayor until he is carried MPs and peers led by Ed Davey and out feet first. Norris and I will almost Conrad Russell, were stalwarts. The certainly both run again. I doubt that Assembly candidates were dedicated next time anyone will bother to write and we owe a lot to those who a book about the campaign. flogged their guts out knowing that But as the events of last year fade in they themselves would not win. We the memory, I confess I am glad used the campaign to build a London- Nightmare was written, to remind me resources to advertise and get around wide awareness of Liberal Democrats that it really did happen and was not the press focus on the other parties and and our policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrected Transcript Evidence Session with Ed Davey MP
    Revised transcript of evidence taken before The Select Committee on the European Union Agriculture, Fisheries, Environment and Energy (Sub-Committee D) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Evidence Session No. 1 Heard in Public Questions 1 - 17 MONDAY 15 JULY 2013 12 noon Witness: Rt Hon Edward Davey MP 1 Members present Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Chairman) Lord Bowness Lord Cameron of Dillington Lord Giddens Baroness Howarth of Breckland Lord Lewis of Newnham Baroness Parminter Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Whitty Lord Williams of Elvel ________________ Witness Rt Hon Edward Davey MP, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Q1 The Chairman: Secretary of State, good morning. It is very good to see you. I know that the Committee has been keen to talk to you and the timing could not have been better. The Government’s response to our energy report came out about 10 days ago. I know that we are all pleased both that it was on time and that it was very detailed and engaged with the Committee’s work, so thank you to you and your staff for that. We know that there have been a lot of recent developments at Council level and, of course, the Energy Bill is going through this House. While scrutiny of that Bill is not the job of this Committee, obviously our Members are interested in it—I know that a number of Committee Members are very engaged with the progress of the Bill. It is a very good time to see you, so thank you.
    [Show full text]
  • Ministerial Selection and Portfolio Allocation in the Cameron Government
    This is a repository copy of Ministerial selection and portfolio allocation in the Cameron Government. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/82698/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Ministerial Selection and Portfolio Allocation in the Cameron Government Dr Timothy Heppell Associate Professor of British Politics School of Politics and International Studies Introduction: The power to appoint and dismiss is one of the most important powers at the disposal of the UK Prime Minister (Allen and Ward, 2009, p. 238). It is through their powers of patronage that they shape, and reshape through reshuffles, their government. It is this power that gives them political leverage and ensures their dominance over their ministerial and party colleagues. All Prime Ministers ‘wield this instrument with strategic effect’ (Berlinski et al, 2012, p. 2). The rise of the career politician would appear to intensify the significance of this power (King, 1981, pp. 249-85) as ministerial office represents the ‘height of ambition’ for most contemporary parliamentarians (Berlinski et al, 2007, p. 245). Most of them ‘passionately want to be ministers’ and ‘if they are already ministers, they want to be promoted in the ministerial hierarchy’, and above all else ‘they certainly do not want to be demoted or dismisse identifying ministerial suitability does remove a significant proportion of the parliamentary party from consideration. An additional question to ask would be whether certain parliamentarians are unsuited to ministerial office for reasons other than competence. Some will have to be discounted due to the fact that their personal behaviour or political attitudes could make them a liability if a minister.
    [Show full text]