Why Clegg is right on Trident

Scrapping nuclear weapons is a vote winner.

As parties scramble to pick up first time voters, they would do well to take note of the views of the younger generation. Polls show that while the majority of the population overall favour scrapping Trident, this sentiment is strongest in the 18 to 24 age group -- at 68 per cent. In fact, polls have indicated strong anti-Trident feeling across the political spectrum.

In terms of voting intentions,according to a ComRes/Independent poll in September 2009, 61 per cent of those planning to vote Labour support scrapping Trident, 63 per cent of those planning to vote Liberal Democrat, and most interestingly perhaps, 48 per cent of potential Conservative supporters, coming in 1 per cent higher than those wanting to keep Trident. Not surprisingly, scrapping Trident can be seen as a vote winner, not a vote loser.

This may be borne out by last night's leaders' debate, where Nick Clegg spoke out strongly against wasting public money on a Cold War nuclear weapons system. Brown and Cameron made their support for Trident very clear. All viewer polls since then show that Nick Clegg was overwhelmingly the most popular candidate.

It may not be specifically because he opposed Trident, but it certainly hasn't damaged his ratings. This is something that Labour in particular needs to be aware of. Some of those in the party leadership may still believe the old myth that Labour's anti-nuclear policies in 1983 led to its electoral defeat. In fact, the Tories polled less than at the previous election, but won out because the newly-founded SDP split the anti-Tory vote.

Be that as it may, there is no doubt that much of the rank and file of the Labour party oppose the leadership's pro-nuclear position. Now it appears that many current Labour candidates are openly breaking with the party's backing for Trident replacement.

CND has been conducting a survey of parliamentary candidates' views on Trident replacement. So far, the responses from Labour candidates -- many of them standing for the first time and in winnable seats -- are over 2 to 1 against replacing Trident.

Do candidates normally go against party policy in election surveys? I don't know the answer to that, but if the party leadership can't win their candidates to the policy, doesn't have the support of large numbers of party members, and is out of touch with public opinion, then maybe they really should have a rethink.

The minimum we should expect from all parties is that Trident should be included in the Strategic Defence Review. There can be no sacred cows, particularly not ones dating back to the Cold War.

Kate Hudson is Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Getty
Show Hide image

Want an independent-minded MP? Vote for a career politician

The brutally ambitious are not content to fall in with the crowd. 

“Never having had a ‘real’ job outside of politics”: this is what the majority of respondents told a YouGov poll in 2014 when asked the most undesirable characteristic of the British politician. The result is hardly surprising. Type the words “career politician” into your search engine or raise the topic at a dinner party, and quickly you will be presented with a familiar list of grievances.

One of the fundamental criticisms is that career politicians in parliament are elitists concerned only with furthering their own interests. Their pronounced and self-serving ambition for climbing the ministerial ladder is said to turn them into submissive party-machines, sycophants or yes men and women, leading them to vote loyally with their party in every parliamentary division. But do we actually have evidence for this?

A new in-depth analysis, to be published later this month in the academic journal, Legislative Studies Quarterly, presents a forceful challenge to this conventional wisdom. In fact, I find that career politician MPs in the UK are more likely to rebel against their party than their non-career politician peers. Why?

My study was motivated by the observation that the existing impression of the party loyalty of career politicians is based mostly on anecdotal evidence and speculation. Moreover, a look through the relevant journalistic work, as well as the sparse extant academic literature, reveals that the two main hypotheses on the topic make starkly contradictory claims. By far the most popular — but largely unverified — view is that their exclusively professional reliance on politics renders career politicians more brutally ambitious for frontbench office, which in turn makes them especially subservient to the party leadership.

The opposing, but lesser known expectation is that while career politicians may be particularly eager to reach the frontbenches, “many of them are also much too proud and wilful to be content to serve as mere lobby fodder”, as the late Anthony King, one of the shrewdest analysts of British politics, observed nearly thirty years ago on the basis of more qualitative evidence.

Faced with these opposing but equally plausible prognoses, I assembled biographical data for all the MPs of the three big parties between 2005-15 (more than 850) and analysed all parliamentary votes during this period. I followed the debate’s prevalent view that an exclusive focus on politics (e.g. as a special adviser or an MP’s assistant) or a closely-related field (e.g. full-time trade union official or interest group worker) marks an MP as a careerist. In line with previous estimations, just under 20 per cent of MPs were identified as career politicians. The extensive statistical analysis accounted for additional factors that may influence party loyalty, and largely ruled out systematic differences in ideology between career and non-career politicians, as well as party or term-specific differences as drivers of the effects.

As noted above, I find strong evidence that career politician backbenchers are more likely to rebel. The strength of this effect is considerable. For example, amongst government backbenchers who have never held a ministerial post, a non-career politician is estimated to rebel in only about 20 votes per parliament. By contrast, a career politician dissents more than twice as often — a substantial difference considering the high party unity in Westminster.

This finding reveals a striking paradox between the predominantly negative opinion of career politicians on the one hand, and the electorate's growing demand for more independent-minded MPs on the other. In fact career politicians are the ones who perform best in delivering on this demand. Similarly, the results imply that the oft-cited career-related dependency of career politicians on the party can be overridden (or, at the very least, complemented) by their self-image as active and independent-minded participants in the legislative process. This should attenuate the prevalent concern that a rise in career politicians leads to a weakening of parliament’s role as a scrutinizing body.

Finally, the findings challenge the pervasive argument that a lack of experience in the real world disqualifies an MP from contributing meaningfully to the legislative process. Instead, it appears that a pre-parliamentary focus on politics can, under certain circumstances, boost an MP's normatively desirable willingness to challenge the party and the executive.

Raphael Heuwieser is researching political party loyalty at the University of Oxford.