Here is an accessible pre-print chapter written by Adrian Balu on the prospects for electoral reform, and the possible effects on the party system.  It argues that significant electoral reform remains unlikely in the UK. Even if a hung parliament arises, electoral reform may not be initiated; even if electoral reform is initiated, it may not be enacted; even if electoral reform is enacted, it may not be a radical change.

This article by Justin Fisher, advisor to the Hayden Phillips Review, in Political Quarterly (sub required) argues that both Labour and the Conservatives have exaggerated the reservations towards caps on donations and spending.  Labour would be likely to suffer if more extensive regulation was introduced and that the Conservatives have stalled the debate by questioning the relationship between Labour and the trade unions.  The best chance of success, he concludes, in funding reform is through consensus rather than moves to secure partisan advantage. 

Amid all the hoo-ha about British MPs expenses - fridges, sofas, and food allowances - what about the electoral advantage of being able to spend over a 100 grand a year digging into your constituency?  Yet as Ron Johnston and Charles Pattie show in this paper, there appears to be no relationship at all between parliamentary expenditure by Labour or Liberal Democrat MPs and their electoral performance.   There is, though, a benefit for Conservative MPs.  All those Labour MPs thinking that their communication allowance might save them next time, might need to think again. 

Timothy Hellwing’s paper for the EPOP panels at the PSA on ‘Instruments of Citizen Control?  Elections, Economics, and Strategic Parties’ uses data from 18 countries over a 33 year period to show how parties can position themselves to avoid blame for any economic downturn.  One of his conclusions is this: ‘Government parties will not be punished for overseeing hard times if their proposals for the economy are similar to those proposed by the opposition’.   Take note, Mr Osborne.

Last week’s very public Lib Dem split over the Lisbon Treaty was an unusual event, as this paper by Matt Cole for the PSA Conference shows.  The Lib Dems are usually one of the most cohesive parliamentary parties, and this paper investigates the causes of that cohesion. 

Why have some radical right populist parties (such as the Lega Nord) been able to govern, whilst others (such as the List Pim Fortuyn) have been less successful?  Andrej Zaslove’s paper for the EPOP panels at the PSA Conference concludes that success is more likely if radical right parties are able to consolidate their political identity, if they possess well [Read more]

Ed Fieldhouse and David Cutts’ forthcoming article (sub required) in Political Studies reveals that Muslim registration levels are higher in predominantly Muslim areas, showing that minority electors are mobilised through social connectedness and community networks, rather than marginalised through deprivation and segregation. 

Why do voters in some countries have confidence in their electoral process, and others don’t?  Sarah Birch’s paper (pdf, 337k), forthcoming in Electoral Studies, shows that countries with use state funding of parties have voters with higher levels of faith in their electoral processes, as do countries that employ PR (although the effect here isn’t half as strong as people might think).  Curiously, countries with formally independent bodies overseeing the elections have lower levels of faith.  Watch out Electoral Commision!    

EPOP is convening a total of nine panels at this year’s PSA conference in Swansea.  One of these papers is from Iain McLean and his colleagues, offering the results of a survey of academic politics journals.  It ranks 92 journals, based on surveys of academic colleagues, and gives results for those in the UK, Canada, and the US.  They report very little difference between the different countries - although Brits rank the BJPS top, compared to North Americans who give the APSR top spot. 

The inaugural JEPOP prize for the best article published in EPOP’s journal in the preceding year goes to Christopher Carman of the University of Strathclyde for his article ‘Assessing Preferences for Political Representation in the US’ (2007, vol 17, issue 1, pp. 1-20).   The David Butler Prize for the best graduate paper presented at the 2007 EPOP Conference has been awarded to Ben Clements of Essex University, for his paper ‘The salience of the European issue and vote choice in Britain, 1983-2005’.  Many congratulations to both; the awards will be made the EPOP’s 2008 conference.