As the home stretch of the EP election campaign rapidly approaches, the major media outlets in Europe have begun to finally cover campaign developments on a regular basis, even as it commands fairly low interest from many voters. In the U.S., the big news outlets have generally ignored the election, with even Reuters and the AP providing little to no coverage.
Not surprisingly, the stories that have emerged in the headlines have largely been event-driven rather than issue-driven, such as Czech Social Democrats leader Jiří Paroubek's campaign rally troubles:
"When the head of the Social Democrats, Jiří Paroubek, was pelted with eggs at a political rally in Kolín two weeks ago, the reaction in the press was one of amusement and shock. But then it happened again in Plzeň, and again in Kladno, and again in Příbram and Beroun. Mr Paroubek has quipped that the perpetrators would be better off baking a cake than haranguing him on the campaign trail, but the Czech daily Právo reported on Saturday that the mood behind the scenes in the Social Democrat camp was one of agitation in light of these developments." [Český rozhlas - Radio Prague, 25 May 09]
In general, EU citizens seem to be taking the opportunity to punish incumbent national parties - to the glee of most member state oppositions. This is most apparent to the Anglophone world through the nose-diving poll numbers for Labour in the UK, more MP and cabinet official resignations, and even tougher rhetoric from the Tories and UK Independence Party (UKIP). "The government is collapsing before our eyes," David Cameron declared earlier today, while the UKIP leader Nigel Farage insisted yesterday that the EP voting that takes place tomorrow "will bring down Gordon Brown."
All politics is local, after all. Though the election is for Europe, and the issues ostensibly linked to issues of pan-European concern, the campaign has again focused on national politics, national identity, and the political troubles of many governing coalitions.
FiveThirtyEight's coverage of the election will continue tomorrow, beginning in the UTC morning.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
24 comments
One of the causes in my opinion, is that most member states combine election days, obviously for economic reasons. The downside of that is that the local election (be it national or regional) gets all the press. At least that's the situation in Belgian.
An EP election by itself might garner more attention.
"All politics is local, after all. Though the election is for Europe, and the issues ostensibly linked to issues of pan-European concern, the campaign has again focused on national politics, national identity, and the political troubles of many governing coalitions."
Very true. Here in the UK, Europe is very much a fringe issue. On the other hand, people are very keen to give the government a kick in the teeth, despite the cross-party nature of the current expenses scandals. The European election results are widely expected to be the final nail in the coffin for Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for reasons entirely unrelated to European policy.
This are so bad that even the left leaning Guardian is today urging Brown to step aside, for the sake of progressive politics:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/02/editorial-gordon-brown-labour
And unfortunatley we are likely to see some of the uglier side of European politics (including the delightful nazis in the BNP). One of the downsides of proportional voting is that the fringe groups get a platform that they don't deserve - especially when the focus is on bashing incumbent govenrments. It would be interesting to have the views of 538 on what a proportional system might mean in terms of the types of parties that would stand a chance of representation in the USA.
In the UK the EP elections are essentially an irrelevance. Brown's Labour Government has been in the process of collapsing for several months now, and these are its final throes of death. Good riddance.
The cause of Labour's collapse is nothing to do with the EU or the EP's elections. It's the expenses scandal, which has had the biggest impact on the party with the most MPs in it (Labour) - and in his response to it, Gordon Brown has been considerably less fleet-footed than the nimble David Cameron. The Conservatives were already high in the polls (with a 10-15 point advantage over Labour), and the Labour Government was very much a lame duck.
The timing of the local and European elections (June 4th) is terrible for Brown. Labour will do terribly in the polls and hopefully the Government will collapse next week.
Europe needs a constitution. Having a continental government without really being taken seriously by the populace, and without the ability to truly define continent-wide policy (see response to economic crisis) is just a situation no one wants.
They should've learned from the US constitutional convention and overstepped their authority: a constitution that would've only taken a majority of countries approval instead of everyone. Sometimes you got to bend the rules a little bit. :)
Its a bit late now though, the moment has passed.
It's highly interesting, thank you for your coverage.
Will you cover the German elections of September too?
Looks like it's going to be thrilling race, too.
Always interesting to see a more global perspective on democracy as practiced outside of the insular USA...
I hear a lot about proportional representation from proponents of the Green Party and other progressive groups, but I am not so sure it would work out the way they expect in the USA. They tend to forget that there are several conservative minority/third parties waiting in the wings, too.
If there were proportional representation in the US, we would definitely see more of the Constitution party, but we also might see more of the "Patriot" party or the "America First" party which is basically the Buchanan/Bircher party. Even the Prohibition party, the "Modern Whig" party, or the Right to Life party might get more attention than they currently do. There are a lot of these single-issue minority conservative parties, and I think proportional representation would unduly increase their voice on our political stage. Given the moderately conservative slant of our media, that could drown out any gains on the liberal side.
Of course, there are also several socialist/workers/labor parties, and maybe proportional representation would encourage them to get better unified and/or organized, too. But, from my observations, the lack of cohesion in the liberal movement would hamper their ability to form a strong coalition.
Obviously, a two-party system leaves some people feeling unrepresented, but it would take millions of milli-parties to capture the diversity of the political spectrum. The two-party system is just a simplification of the coalitions that would have been created by mini-party mergers anyway.
The EU is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Over the last few decades it grew (both in size and in responsibilities) but it still relies on many of the old mechanisms that may have been good solutions for the Europe of 1980 or 1950 but are no more for the EU today. But politicians also fear to lose all the progress (that was made in Europe) and are accordingly not open to big changes.
Europe would need a bold new plan. Not in the sense of giving more responsibilities away from the local level but more in the sense of clearly, and without doubt defining which issues are best handeld in Brusseles (e.g. common market, borders, trade) and which are best handeld on a national or local level (e.g. defense, schools and universities, VAT etc. etc.). There should be a debate about just that. And, if that’s done (as if it were easy), we should scrap all the current European structures (too convoluted, too complex, not democratic enough) and start over.
That is something that would be necessary to give the European project (which was, and still is a great idea – making Europe peaceful and wealthy) a sustainable future. But it won’t happen. I guess many fear that such a huge and hard transformation also endangers the EU if it should fail. So, in the end, I’m really helpless when it comes to the future of the EU.
mclever: its perfectly possible to have a multi-party system without PR - the UK have three major parties, and any number of smaller ones. However we have tended to have a binary system with only two parties having a real chance of power at any one time. The one recent national exception, the Lib-Lab Pact, wasn't a stunning example of great politics.
There is no doubt, however, that a PR system would give smaller parties more of a say. I think in the US where the President (executive) would be from a single party you could have PR by State for the House without ending up with too much disruption.
Here in the UK I would favour a FPTP or STV election for the Commons on single member seats, and a proportional system for an elected Lords on multi-member constituencies. But that's just me.
Mclever
"But, from my observations, the lack of cohesion in the liberal movement would hamper their ability to form a strong coalition. "
Whilst this is very true, the left can form strong coalitions - so long as there is a foe on which one can focus energy on.
For example "No2EU - Yes to Democracy". This is a coalition of a load of left wing parties and a union in the United Kingdom, that because of the focus against the capitalist EU imperialism has been able to produce a viable left alternative to the pro-business parties.
So long as the unions and the parties of the left in America can find a single issue that they can group around, and as such be able to ignore all the small differences, then they should be able to form a strong coalition.
The plight of Labour poses interesting questions for this site. I follow British politics daily, and contra Andrew, the collapse of Labour is not simply the expenses scandal (which hit both major parties). Rather, Labour has suffered for the Iraq War, for high taxes and a failure to deliver services, for a broken national health service, and for presiding over "the Casino" (financial services shenanigans in London, as in NYC). Some of these factors also brought down Bush, but the fact that they are generating a blowback against a left wing Social Democratic style government gives the lie to the "death of conservatism" meme. And lest anyone proclaim that this is all a function of Cameron's "moderateness", note that his real climb in the polls coincides with a rightward move in his policies. The tax and spend strategy of Britain has brought broken government and enormous deficits. This lies in our future of Obama doesn't change course.
It may be more marked in the UK but the anti-incumbent mood is going to take a lot of scalps all over the EU. In Ireland the government party, Fianna Fail, is headed for a loss and further erosion of their capacity to govern credibly. I wouldn't be surprised if a general election in the UK was swiftly followed by ones in Ireland and elsewhere.
Interesting times.
Also, I agree with Parlour, the EU desperately needs reform but it ain't gonna happen. The various constituent governments would rather blame the EU for their problems than educate their people about it so they have no ability to persuade the people of anything positive with regards to Europe.
Ireland is only going to vote for the Lisbon Treaty the second time 'round because we've had out asses handed to us in this economic mess and we need Daddy-EU to sort out our mess for us.
Duncan,
Thanks for your response. I think your suggestion of Proportional Representation in the House of Representatives only would be an interesting one. It would also serve to better clarify for the public what those de facto minor-party coalitions are.
As you describe in the British system, though you have three major parties, only two have a real chance at power at any time. The rest form coalitions with one of those two, and the shifting coalitions form the power shifts.
In the USA, the coalitions aren't defined by parties, but by voting blocs loosely based around issues. That's why each of the two major parties has positions that would seem to be ideologically opposed, because that's how they keep their coalition of voters together, by balancing these various issue positions.
Not that much different than what happens in actual party coalition forming, where the larger party moderates its stance on a particular issue in order to gain support of a minority party.
Liat,
"so long as there is a foe on which one can focus energy on"
And that seems to be the problem... Liberals in America can't seem to agree on a consistent foe. Once GWB fades, I suspect there will be some serious schisms in the American Left.
There's a lot of crying about which issues get priority... When they get to the inevitable "if you don't make [insert issue here] the number one priority, then I'm taking my toys and going home" stage, then the coalition falls apart.
Jeff, these aren't the problems of a "left-wing social democratic" government, they are the problems of a neo-liberal government. New Labour, Blair and Brown have simply carried on the Conservative policies of the past 30 years.
The Conservatives haven't climbed in the polls due to their policies, they have climbed because ex-Labour voters have defected to them because they have nowhere else to go. Cameron has exploited their lead to put forward his true Thatcherite policies, rather than the façade of liberalism he played on for so long.
@parlour introducing more democracy would go a long way towards making a more unified government. Look at the affect electing senators directly had: the US federal government lost the main check on its power, and started playing a much bigger role.
For people who don't want a big EU government, I suppose its a reminder that the structure of the government (eg having the council chosen by national governments instead of directly by the people) is much more important then constitutional-imposed limitations, which can always be worked around even if it takes decades.
So yea its really hard. :)
mclever
Sorry - I haven't been entirely clear "The rest form coalitions with one of those two, and the shifting coalitions form the power shifts."
Actually what we've seen is that one of the two bigger parties has been able to get a majority and therefore form a Government. There has been little need for coalitions in Parliament. In the regional governments (Wales and Scotland) there is PR, and there have been coalitions. In local government there are frequently coalitions - and I'm not a great fan of them as deals get done behind closed doors that voters get no say in at all.
As you can see from other posts, the Labour Government is in trouble, and given that people are variously saying that its too right wing (not a socialist government) or that its too left wing (spendocrat would be a word that springs to mind) you can see the classic pincer movement is in place.
Tony Blair built up a coalition of voters in 97, 01 and 05 that was big enough to win two landlides and one (historically speaking) big majority. In many respects this is just like the US - in our current system you need to be able to carry both your core voters and the soft centre in order to win.
The centre has apparently decided that they are no longer willing to support the Labour Party. It will be the job of the party going forward to find a way of rebuilding a coalition of voters that can advance a progressive position.
The problems that the Labour Party is having right now have there roots in the 10p mess up of last year. (The Labour Government withdrew the 10p income tax band which proved very unpopular) in much the same way that the collapse of the Thatcher government was started by the Poll Tax.
I think Cameron (a man I detest by the way, the thought of him as Prime Minister really does scare me, trust me George W Bush with an Eton accent) has been clever in being able to channel dislike of the current government, but I don't think he is personally very popular. I think that any vote in either this EP election and indeed the General Election that will happen in the next year, is a vote against Labour, rather than a vote for his party.
Incidentally I don't think everything is lost for either the Labour Party or indeed Gordon Brown. I think an overall majority might be beyond Brown, but I think they can bring the party back together if the economy begins to recover and if Brown shows some mettle.
On PR, my own personal preference would be a additional seats system (FPTP plus some 'list seats' based on PR) and then the House of Lords to be based on PR, with some additional cross bencher seats.
markymark, you're very wrong there. Cameron's personal approval rating is +30, which is much bigger than the Tory lead. And he's nothing like George W Bush in any sense, stop spouting rubbish.
Liat,
That is absurd, the talking point of only the most hard left labour type. Taxes and social spending in the UK are exceptionally high, as is regulation of all kind. The fact that the country, its health system, and its finances, are in total disarray cannot be blamed on Thatcher or "neo-liberalism".
Jeff, only the most hard right neo-liberal would deny the disastrous effects that neo-liberalism has had on the British economy.
Taxes may be high, but it is where the taxes go that matters not the existence of them. That leads us to the social spending; it isn't spend where it is needed - money that should go to the health service instead goes towards paying for managers working in the PCTs, and going towards private companies as part of Maggie's privatisation efforts. Money that should be going towards giving the poor relief with the 10p tax band - instead goes on giving the rich and middle class tax cuts with cutting income tax.
Regulation isn't high at all.
It certainly can be blamed on Thatcher, she started us down the road of the economy and social mismanagement of the country - and it is her who forced Labour to the right and to adopt her policies. As Tony Benn says: Thatcher's greatest success is New Labour.
If Labour really were a left wing government then they wouldn't have continued down the road started by Thatcher - they would brought forth truly socialist economic management.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
gucci replica handbags
men gucci shoes
Gucci men sneakers
Gucci men moccasins
gucci women sneakers
gucci women boots
Gucci men boots
Gucci
Gucci shop
Gucci bags
Gucci shoes
Replica GUCCI SHOES
wholesale gucci shoes
cheap Gucci handbags
Gucci ON sale
Gucci Belts
Gucci small accessories
Gucci hats & scarves
Gucci wallets
Gucci Handbags
Women Gucci shoes
Men Gucci shoes
discount gucci shoes
cheap Gucci shoes
Post a Comment