The European Elections are NOT done on PR

[Harry Hayfield]

The 1999 European Elections Act was passed when the Labour government invoked the Parliament Act after peers had blocked the PR element. Using the data from the elections held, I shall attempt to suggest what would have happened if Labour had let that element go and the elections were contested on FPTP. However, I would like to know what members think would have happened in 2010 when the coalition came in, would they have adopted PR for the 2014 elections or not?

[J.G.Harston]

Mar 19, 2019 14:50:07 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

The 1999 European Elections Act was passed when the Labour government invoked the Parliament Act after peers had blocked the PR element. Using the data from the elections held, I shall attempt to suggest what would have happened if Labour had let that element go and the elections were contested on FPTP. However, I would like to know what members think would have happened in 2010 when the coalition came in, would they have adopted PR for the 2014 elections or not?

Wasn't is a treaty requirement to use a form of PR? If the 1999 Act hadn't been forced through I can see the UK being sued (or whatever) by whatever the rules-enforcing body is/was.

On the other hand, the PR aspect of EU elections gave UKIP a very strong elected base, without that there might have been sufficient support for the Conservatives in 2010 to avoid the Coalition and/or Cameron.

[J.G.Harston]

Mar 19, 2019 14:56:47 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Mar 19, 2019 14:50:07 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

The 1999 European Elections Act was passed when the Labour government invoked the Parliament Act after peers had blocked the PR element. Using the data from the elections held, I shall attempt to suggest what would have happened if Labour had let that element go and the elections were contested on FPTP. However, I would like to know what members think would have happened in 2010 when the coalition came in, would they have adopted PR for the 2014 elections or not?

Wasn't is a treaty requirement to use a form of PR? If the 1999 Act hadn't been forced through I can see the UK being sued (or whatever) by whatever the rules-enforcing body is/was.

On the other hand, the PR aspect of EU elections gave UKIP a very strong elected base, without that there might have been sufficient support for the Conservatives in 2010 to avoid the Coalition and/or Cameron.

Doing some very rough calculations, if we'd kept FPTP for EU elections, the back of my envelope looks like this (1994 actual results):

    1994     1999     2004    2009
Lab  42% 62   26%  19  22% 34  15% 31
Con  26% 18   33%  56  26% 40  27% 35
LD   16% 2    12%  3   14% 3   13% 6
SNP  3%  2    2.5% 3   1%  1   2%  5
Grn  3%  0    2.3% 1   6%  2   8%  3
UKIP 1%  0    6.5% 2   16% 3   16% 4
BNP                    5%  1   6%  0

[AdminSTB]

I seem to remember it being suggested the Lib Dems would have been wiped out in 1999 under FPTP, and David Dimbleby pressing Paddy Ashdown over it the morning after results night.

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 19, 2019 17:17:39 GMT AdminSTB said:

I seem to remember it being suggested the Lib Dems would have been wiped out in 1999 under FPTP, and David Dimbleby pressing Paddy Ashdown over it the morning after results night.

They would - IIRC they carried about three Westminster constituencies that year so would clearly not have been ahead in any of the larger Euro constituencies. They wouldn't have in any subsequent elections either so I don't know what strange assumptions the back of an envelope figures above are based on. Obviously people vote in different ways in a different system, but its a real stretch from the numbers to see how the Lib Dems could have won three seats in 1999

[Pete Whitehead]

Hold on, just seen there are Green and BNP seats on that table too. How the fuck (and where the fuck) are those parties winning seats on FPTP ??

[clyde1998]

Based on what I can work out, using the old EP boundaries, I estimate that it would've been Con 48, Lab 31, SNP 2, Plaid 2, SSP 1 (in Glasgow), Lib 0 in 1999 - assuming people voted the same way as the did with the D'Hondt system (which they almost certainly wouldn't) and there were exactly the same parties available in each constituency as there was in 1994 (which there almost certainly wouldn't).

We almost certainly wouldn't have had the referendum in 2016 (at least for the same reason), as UKIP wouldn't have had a platform to build upon that the 1999 European election gave them. In 2004, onwards, people realised that they could vote UKIP and get a UKIP candidate election (same with the Greens in some areas) - whereas that wouldn't have happened with the FPTP system. UKIP wouldn't have grown into the force that they did for the 2015 election, pushing the Conservatives into a referendum.

[clyde1998]

Mar 20, 2019 7:31:32 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Hold on, just seen there are Green and BNP seats on that table too. How the fuck (and where the fuck) are those parties winning seats on FPTP ??

It's possible that, when converting into FPTP, the assumption has been made that they'd get more votes in certain areas under FPTP due to supporters of other parties voting tactically (if their preferred party has less chance of winning). 

[Pete Whitehead]

As you say people were more likely to vote UKIP or Green in 1999 because it was more likely to result in electing an MEP (I first vote for UKIP in that election and was awarded with a UKIP MEP in my region). The idea that those parties would have got more votes in some locations under FPTP rather than fewer is for the birds, because there's nowhere where they were close to challenging so they would have suffered rather than benefited from any tactical voting. But J.G.Harston suggests the Greens would have won one seat and UKIP two that year and more in subsequent years. UKIP would have won a plurality in a couple of FPTP Euro seats in 2004 and 2009 but the Greens and BNP would not have been close anywhere

[clyde1998]

Mar 20, 2019 10:06:27 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

As you say people were more likely to vote UKIP or Green in 1999 because it was more likely to result in electing an MEP (I first vote for UKIP in that election and was awarded with a UKIP MEP in my region). The idea that those parties would have got more votes in some locations under FPTP rather than fewer is for the birds, because there's nowhere where they were close to challenging so they would have suffered rather than benefited from any tactical voting. But J.G.Harston suggests the Greens would have won one seat and UKIP two that year and more in subsequent years. UKIP would have won a plurality in a couple of FPTP Euro seats in 2004 and 2009 but the Greens and BNP would not have been close anywhere

Well, it would be down to targeting and the candidate. Taking a recent example, UKIP were vastly more likely to win Thanet South in the 2015 election because Nigel Farage stood, than they would've been otherwise. If that election had been held under D'Hondt and Farage was standing in the South East England region for UKIP, then it's possible that the UKIP vote would've been lower in Thanet South as the targeting by UKIP would've been over the region, rather than in a specific constituency within the region.

---

Also worth noting that (on a separate point) a party may not win a plurality in any single constituency, but could win a plurality in a region made up of those constituencies. Take two constituencies of the same size:

• A - Con 40, Lib 30, Lab 20, Oth 10
• B - Lab 40, Lib 35, Con 20, Oth 5

Despite not winning a plurality in either of the seats, the Lib Dems (in the example above) won 65 votes across the two, compared to 60 for both the Conservative and Labour. I can't say if there would be an area where the Greens or, especially, the BNP would've been able to win seats in 2004/2009 as a result of this - perhaps the Brighton area for the Greens - but it's theoretically possible for it to happen.

[clyde1998]

FTR, the Scotland EP constituency calculations (sum of the constituency totals for 1999*) are:

Glasgow: Lab 38.0% (-14.6), SNP 25.6% (-1.2), SSP 10.5% (+2.9**) Con 10.4% (+3.6), Grn 6.7% (+5.3), Lib 5.9% (+1.3), Oth 4.1% (+2.7)
Highlands & Islands: SNP 30.8% (-27.6), Con 20.4% (+8.1), Lab 18.2% (+2.6), Lib 15.7% (+5.6), Grn 6.6% (+6.6), Oth 8.3% (+7.1)
Lothians: Lab 29.0% (-15.9), SNP 23.8% (-2.7), Con 19.6% (+3.0), Lib 11.4% (+2.5), Grn 9.1% (+6.5), Oth 7.1% (+6.6)
Mid Scotland & Fife: Lab 29.7% (-16.1), SNP 27.4% (-3.4), Con 20.1% (+6.6), Lib 9.5% (+1.3), Grn 5.4% (+4.0), Oth 7.8% (+7.5)
North East Scotland: SNP 35.3% (-7.5), Con 23.3% (+4.7), Lab 19.1% (-9.3), Lib 10.9% (+2.6), Grn 4.6% (+3.4), Oth 6.7% (+6.2)
South of Scotland: Con 28.4% (+5.7), Lab 26.2% (-19.0), SNP 22.8% (+0.4), Lib 9.4% (+2.8), Grn 4.9% (+3.7), Oth 8.2% (+6.4) - Con GAIN from Lab
Strathclyde East: Lab 40.3% (-17.7), SNP 26.8% (-2.7), Con 12.3% (+4.7), SSP 6.5% (+6.5), Lib 6.0% (+2.5), Grn 4.2% (+1.0), Oth 4.0% (+3.6)
Strathclyde West: Lab 30.5% (-13.9), SNP 25.8% (-5.8), Con 20.4% (+5.9), Lib 9.3% (+1.8), Grn 4.9% (+3.4), SSP 4.6% (+4.6), Oth 4.4% (+3.9)

Scotland seats: Lab 5 (-1), SNP 2 (=), Con 1 (+1)

*The 1999 figures were counted by 1997 Westminster constituency, while the EP seats were based on the previous boundaries so some variations between the boundaries may have occurred.
**Scottish Socialist Party change in Glasgow compared to Scottish Militant Labour in 1994.

[Pete Whitehead]

Of course it's theoretically possible - that is obvious, but it's hardly worth pointing it out in this case. The Greens were still in third place in all three Brighton seats in 1999 and they were fifth in the group of constituencies which would have made up East Sussex & Kent South (which included the two Brighton seats but not Hove).
The reason I drew attention to the small number of constituencies where the Lib Dems led in 1999 was to illustrate how poorly they had done generally. They carried three constituencies in the entire country and none of these were within the areas of the two Euro seats that they won in 1994. We don't have constituency figures for 1994 but it's obvious that the Lib Dems would have carried a large number then. It seems very odd then that they are projected to have gained an additional seat in 1999

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 20, 2019 12:20:54 GMT clyde1998 said:

FTR, the Scotland EP constituency calculations (sum of the constituency totals for 1999*) are:

Glasgow: Lab 38.0% (-14.6), SNP 25.6% (-1.2), SSP 10.5% (+2.9**) Con 10.4% (+3.6), Grn 6.7% (+5.3), Lib 5.9% (+1.3), Oth 4.1% (+2.7)
Highlands & Islands: SNP 30.8% (-27.6), Con 20.4% (+8.1), Lab 18.2% (+2.6), Lib 15.7% (+5.6), Grn 6.6% (+6.6), Oth 8.3% (+7.1)
Lothians: Lab 29.0% (-15.9), SNP 23.8% (-2.7), Con 19.6% (+3.0), Lib 11.4% (+2.5), Grn 9.1% (+6.5), Oth 7.1% (+6.6)
Mid Scotland & Fife: Lab 29.7% (-16.1), SNP 27.4% (-3.4), Con 20.1% (+6.6), Lib 9.5% (+1.3), Grn 5.4% (+4.0), Oth 7.8% (+7.5)
North East Scotland: SNP 35.3% (-7.5), Con 23.3% (+4.7), Lab 19.1% (-9.3), Lib 10.9% (+2.6), Grn 4.6% (+3.4), Oth 6.7% (+6.2)
South of Scotland: Con 28.4% (+5.7), Lab 26.2% (-19.0), SNP 22.8% (+0.4), Lib 9.4% (+2.8), Grn 4.9% (+3.7), Oth 8.2% (+6.4) - Con GAIN from Lab
Strathclyde East: Lab 40.3% (-17.7), SNP 26.8% (-2.7), Con 12.3% (+4.7), SSP 6.5% (+6.5), Lib 6.0% (+2.5), Grn 4.2% (+1.0), Oth 4.0% (+3.6)
Strathclyde West: Lab 30.5% (-13.9), SNP 25.8% (-5.8), Con 20.4% (+5.9), Lib 9.3% (+1.8), Grn 4.9% (+3.4), SSP 4.6% (+4.6), Oth 4.4% (+3.9)

Scotland seats: Lab 5 (-1), SNP 2 (=), Con 1 (+1)

*The 1999 figures were counted by 1997 Westminster constituency, while the EP seats were based on the previous boundaries so some variations between the boundaries may have occurred.
**Scottish Socialist Party change in Glasgow compared to Scottish Militant Labour in 1994.

Had the 1999 elections been fought under FPTP they would have been under new boundaries reflecting the new constituency boundaries which came into effect for Westminster in 1997.

[timrollpickering]

Mar 19, 2019 14:56:47 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Wasn't is a treaty requirement to use a form of PR? If the 1999 Act hadn't been forced through I can see the UK being sued (or whatever) by whatever the rules-enforcing body is/was.

IIRC the treaty requirement was added later - it was a classic case of the government of the day using EU treaties as a way to lock up policy and prevent future parliaments from being able to undo a controversial decision.

Mar 20, 2019 7:30:00 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Mar 19, 2019 17:17:39 GMT AdminSTB said:

I seem to remember it being suggested the Lib Dems would have been wiped out in 1999 under FPTP, and David Dimbleby pressing Paddy Ashdown over it the morning after results night.

They would - IIRC they carried about three Westminster constituencies that year so would clearly not have been ahead in any of the larger Euro constituencies.

Well in theory a party that came second everywhere could if the leading parties varied sufficiently that no one could overhaul the second placed's total. But yeah this was a disastrous election for the Lib Dems. It came just five weeks after the first Scottish Parliament election and the party's decision to go into coalition with Labour & drop the outright abolish tuition fees pledge was a clear millstone during the campaign. (Funny how history repeated itself!) Although the PR system gave them a boost in seats, it was still quite disappointing for the party, they lost one of their two sitting MEPs and despite all the publicity that the election was via PR it didn't live up to their predictions that changing the voting system would turn turnout around.

Mar 20, 2019 12:20:54 GMT clyde1998 said:

*The 1999 figures were counted by 1997 Westminster constituency, while the EP seats were based on the previous boundaries so some variations between the boundaries may have occurred.

ISTR the boundary commission did produce a set of constituencies for the 1999 elections, before the PR legislation was enacted, and ISTR that they were used as the Scottish and Welsh list regions. Certainly there was talk at the time of how the elections would have gone under the old system, with the Scottish Conservatives noting that they would have won South of Scotland, though the Western Isles's refusal to count on a Sunday was limiting the whole Scottish results even then.

[Pete Whitehead]

Davıd Boothroyd said:

Though the electoral system for the elections to the European Parliament was changed to the Regional Lists in 1999 by the European Parliament Elections Act 1999 (1999 c. 1), the Boundary Commissions had proposed new constituencies which would have taken place if the First Past the Post system had continued in use. These new European Parliamentary constituencies are defined in terms of the Parliamentary constituencies created by the Fourth Periodical Review of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions (published in 1995).

These constituencies were never in the end used for elections to the European Parliament, though the recommendations for Wales and Scotland were used as the regions for the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.

www.election.demon.co.uk/epbound.html

[J.G.Harston]

Mar 20, 2019 9:58:16 GMT clyde1998 said:

Mar 20, 2019 7:31:32 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Hold on, just seen there are Green and BNP seats on that table too. How the fuck (and where the fuck) are those parties winning seats on FPTP ??

It's possible that, when converting into FPTP, the assumption has been made that they'd get more votes in certain areas under FPTP due to supporters of other parties voting tactically (if their preferred party has less chance of winning). 

I said it was only back-of-envelope. In 1994 the SNP got 3% and 2 seats (in targetted areas), in 2004 the Greens got 6% so I assigned 2 seats (in targetted areas) halving the proportion to account for nation-wide figures and estimations, ditto BNP.

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 20, 2019 14:04:11 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Mar 20, 2019 9:58:16 GMT clyde1998 said:

It's possible that, when converting into FPTP, the assumption has been made that they'd get more votes in certain areas under FPTP due to supporters of other parties voting tactically (if their preferred party has less chance of winning). 

I said it was only back-of-envelope. In 1994 the SNP got 3% and 2 seats (in targetted areas), in 2004 the Greens got 6% so I assigned 2 seats (in targetted areas) halving the proportion to account for nation-wide figures and estimations, ditto BNP.

Sorry what ?
You do understand, don't you, that SNP support tends to rather be concentrated in one particular part of the UK ?

[clyde1998]

I've started calculating the 1999 European election under FPTP using the 1999 constituency results; the spreadsheet is here: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W2a6Ut_IFborlH7p_qprL_9uOApZZEwQM9NTP5SSzdA/edit?usp=sharing

I've done Scotland and Wales so far, with Scotland being corrected (from my post above) to match the Boundary Commission recommendations - it doesn't change any seat winners though. In Wales, North Wales and Mid & West Wales would've gone to Plaid, with Labour taking all three South Wales seats.

England will be completed in due course, once I've worked out how closely the Boundary Commission recommendations followed the final English regions boundaries that were actually used for 1999.

[greenchristian]

A Green win in a Brighton-centred seat is just about plausible in 2009 (though clearly not the most probable outcome, and Pete's pointed out that the 1994 boundaries were split in the wrong place for this), and reasonably likely in 2014, but a Green win before that under FPTP is not even remotely credible. And I don't see that UKIP learns enough about targeting to be able to win any Euro constituency.

[Harry Hayfield]

On the subject of the Euros in the present day this petition has just popped up (and as Brexit has been delayed, it is now valid) petition.parliament.uk/petitions/243613