mudhook

As we glide effortlessly into the unitary set up, let me recall the present political disposition of Cornwall.

In 2005 there were elections for the eighty two county council seats and a general election for the five seats; in 2007 there were elections for the six district councils, elections for the whole council in five of the districts and for a third in Penwith. The results of these give us the present party make-up of Cornwall.

Overall nearly 800 000 votes were cast in the three sets of elections. Here they are in percentages:

General election 2005
Liberal Democrats 44.4, Conservatives 31.8, Labour 15.9, UKIP 5, MK 1.4, Greens 0.7, all others 0.9

County council elections 2005
Liberal Democrats 39.2, Conservatives 24.1, Independents 19.5, Labour 10.5, MK 3.2, Greens 1.3, UKIP 1.1, all others 1.1

District elections 2007
Liberal Democrats 36.1, Conservatives 30.7, Independents 20.0, MK 3.9, Labour 3.5, UKIP 2.5, Greens 0.7, all others 2.6.

There are caveats.

These figures do not compare the same seats over time but different seats. The aim is to give a general county snapshot using the latest figures available in the three sets.

In the county and district elections some seats had more than one councillor elected and so people had more than one vote. The percentages are based on totals of votes not ballot papers. The “others” include unlabelled candidates, Liberals (a separate party from Liberal Democrats), two BNP candidates, and Veritas. Uncontested seats are excluded.

The votes cast for a party depend in part on how many candidates stand for that party though how many candidates a party puts up reflects its organisational and membership health and its estimate of its chances.

The parties perform differently in the seats and these overall figures, which represent general averages of real votes, do not reveal those differences. A couple of very popular candidates do wonders for a small party’s total vote and percentage and make it difficult to assess that party’s general standing with the electorate. These considerations suggest that in local elections at any rate some people do not vote only for a party.

The general election throws up very different results so here are the two local government sets in percentages of votes cast, county 2005 and districts 2007, more than half a million votes:

Liberal Democrats 37.9, Conservatives 26.9, Independents 19.7, Labour 7.5, MK 3.5, UKIP 1.7, Greens 1.1, Others 1.7.

Finally, these figures are about people’s choices. Seats won are a different matter, about power.

The next elections are in spring 2009 for the unitary council.

_________________________________________________

Bewildered in the maze of schools: Alexander Pope (1688-1744) An essay on criticism

Cornish political nationalism is not a popular take on life here, it lacks credibility on the street and overall lacks success electorally. It is a nanority among the
410 000 adults in Cornwall.

Is the lack of success down to limited publicity? Does a universal darkness in the media of Cornwall bury all nationalism? If people heard, would they not accede? If they saw, would they not love?

All organised political viewpoints struggle to be heard in the local media which is, like its readers and viewers and the national media, more interested in cute babies, rabid corgis, and misdeeds.

The Mebyon Kernow party (MK) stands in general elections and that means its leaflets are sent, post free, to every elector in the constituencies where it stands. Over the past three decades that is a lot of electors and a lot of leaflets. When MK stands in local elections its leaflets are no doubt put through many letterboxes; it has a website too. I should think most people in Cornwall are aware of MK and the claims of Cornish political nationalism.

I have explained in another post, Unfair to Mebyon Kernow, that I think MK in fairness should get money for elections. A different voting system in elections might help MK (and Labour) too.

Is the nationalist failure because there is only one variety of nationalism, a lack of choice, MK, take it or leave it? No, look at the choices.

There is a strand of the Liberal Democrat party here which is…nationalist-lite is the best description I think. It cries up the claims of Cornwall as different, unique, exceptional, duchy, whatever, and always hard done by. These claims are found on websites and in leaflets and in the other media. Much of the Libdem party which does not hold the nationalism seems to share the view that Cornwall is basically hard done by and that view in itself may unintentionally feed political nationalism. It is unclear how far people voting Libdem do so because of this fuzzy nationalism; but increasingly a distance and difference is being publicly established between the Libdems and the nationalists proper; MK and the Libdems will fight one another in every seat in Cornwall in the next general election.

Additionally, there are numerous nationalist groupuscules. Remember the Monty Python satire on the Judean struggle, half a dozen people in an alphabetical soup? It might seem a little like that but I think we should look at it positively. There’s a group specialising in every cornat interest, every nook is explored, every cranny examined, every variety of nationalism is catered for. Their memberships are undeclared and that probably indicates a very, very small proportion of the adults in Cornwall.

Of course this profusion of groups might be a counterproductive embarrass de choix but I don’t think so and the different groups do not obviously contradict one another in public though even semi-formal coordinating arrangements seem nonexistent.

Cornish political nationalism does get an airing and there is ample choice of strands in it. Nowadays the net offers possibilities of publicity and there are nationalist sites about everything including the various cornat takes on history, identity, and Cornwall’s status within the UK. Nationalist claims are made on other online sites too. Several online petitions have appeared advocating explicit nationalist political and governance policies: they receive small support; often miniscule is flattery. Letters and media releases from nationalists are published.

The local papers were full of happy photographs of the recent St Piran day parades with black-and-white Cornwall flags in abundance though the sentiment there is cultural rather than strictly political nationalism; schoolchildren do not take part in political rallies and do not march with political flags but take part in displays of local patriotism and festivals found all over Britain. Nevertheless, pop cultural events like those in Padstow, Helston, and Penzance no doubt help to acquaint some people with a nationalist as well as a local sentiment. For some the popular culture shades off into political nationalism and the sense of a national Cornwall is felt keenly.

Cornish nationalism does get publicity. I think Labour and the Conservatives in Cornwall might say more than they do. It isn’t lack of publicity or monolithic choice that is keeping nationalism a minority take on life.

So what is it?

People in Cornwall, like people all over England, well understand that you can support more local decision-making and self-government without being a nationalist. They understand, what nationalism seems to have difficulty with, the struggle of central government to balance fairly the claims of all the areas and groups in England. They know you can celebrate local culture and achievements without being a nationalist. In Liberating Cornwall and other posts I have explained that the story of a Cornwall always hard done by does not match the reality on the ground.

The people in Cornwall have heard Cornish political nationalism and the vast majority of them don’t rate what they hear. They have seen and do not love. The people have spoken, the bastards.

_______________________________________________________

MK still at base camp
Does MK speak for the people of Cornwall

To see her is to love her,
And love but her for ever
- Robert Burns Bonnie Lesley

Life’s getting better

I’ve said before that people here differ in how they see Cornwall. Some see themselves as Cornish not English and Cornwall as in sundry ways a separate country. Others see themselves as English or Cornish-and-English and Cornwall in 2007 as a county of England; there are other identities and combinations too. I’m sure most of us get on with our lives and one another and don’t fret about our identities. We are concerned with seizing life and opportunities ourselves and encouraging others to do so.

And life and opportunities are improving in Cornwall and are there for the seizing. The economy is growing, there are more jobs, British and EU funds are making a difference, Cornwall is not the worst-off place in England. In large ways and in a thousand small ways Cornwall is going forward: see the Vorsprung Cornwall posts for the latter.

Oh, of course Jerusalem is not yet. For example, housing for those starting out is a serious problem, as it is elsewhere in England; and the obvious solution of building enough housing specifically for them is costly and hampered by a variety of unconvincing objections. Many wages are debilitatingly low but objective one and convergence EU funds together building the economy are our best hope of raising them significantly.

However, overall there is very much about twenty-first century Cornwall to be upbeat about. Be of good cheer. This is the liberation of Cornwall.

Nationalist difficulties in the face of more prosperity

Faced with the demonstrable improvements in life nationalism has a problem. A common argument is that Cornwall is at the bottom of every league and suffers from deliberate neglect and unfairness by the British government and only nationalist solutions can work. This nationalist argument is falling apart. More and more people here can see with their own eyes it is not true. Cornwall is doing well as a county of England. The economic grievance agenda is looking ludicrous and surreal.

Of course, the argument that “we’re ethnically different and that’s important” still persuades some people here and I am happy for people to identify themselves as Cornish and celebrate their Cornishness. However, the vast majority of people here, whatever ethnic label they give themselves voluntarily or if asked or pressed and whatever they celebrate, are not agitated about ethnicity and genetics and happily get on with their lives and one another. It is a small minority that sweats about labels or minisculely different DNA. Most people walking down the street or drinking in the pub cannot tell who is Cornish, who is English, who is whatever; and for most people it is not an everyday concern at all.

Devastatingly for nationalism, most people are able to celebrate Cornishness without signing up to nationalist politics. The constitutional argument does not touch them; they celebrate Cornishness but do not believe Cornwall is a separate country from England and instead believe that Cornwall is and has been for centuries a county of England. Only nationalism links contemporary Cornishness with some form of Cornish political separateness.

I believe the nationalist constitutional argument, the belief that Cornwall is truly not a county but a country and the county arrangements are illegal as would be clear if only a court could be found to say so, is of interest to only a handful who look backward to a contested history.

Nationalism in fact largely stresses localism and a claimed administrative efficiency as the argument for devolution, though this apparently can incorporate the belief that using the word Cornish in front of an institution necessarily makes it work better, and the claim that Cornwall is a “Celtic nation” is still advanced as a reason for devolution.

Electoral nationalism fails

Real life gets in the way of nationalist theory. Hardly anybody votes for explicit nationalists or, as far as I can see, joins their organisations. Mebyon Kernow (MK), the largest and most public nationalist group, has made no serious electoral progress for years. The other political nationalist organisations here are distinguished for their insignificance in the lives of most people in Cornwall.

Electoral nationalism has failed.

The changing improved circumstances of real life and the failure to make headway among voters and people generally have, however, energised some on the nationalist spectrum. I shall look at these in another post.

In the elections on 3 May 2007 for district councils in Cornwall, all the seats in five of the six Cornwall councils were up for election and eleven were in Penwith. That’s a total of 225 seats.

Mebyon Kernow put up twenty four district council candidates. This party is not a major player.

Seven Mebyon Kernow district councillors were elected. MK lost one district seat and gained two, a nett gain of one. It got around 5 percent of the total vote in the district elections in Cornwall.

In the parish/town council elections at the same time twenty one MK councillors were elected (a few were unopposed), a nett gain of one.

MK Cornish political nationalism is still vastly unpersuasive to most voters in Cornwall. This party is not speaking for most people in Cornwall.

See the post Does MK speak for the people of Cornwall?

Mebyon Kernow (MK) is a political party I shall never vote for. I think that generally its policies are naive and unhelpful. However, it should not suffer an injustice in public funding.

The review of party funding now published as Strengthening democracy suggests that taxpayers should fund parties at the rate of fifty pence a year for every vote they got at the last general election for the British parliament - provided they won at least two seats in that election. (There are also other suggestions in the review which do not concern me here. Nor am I arguing here about the public financing of political parties, a view I agree with.)

If we are to use tax money to fund political parties I am sure the review has it right in using votes received as a criterion. This rewards endeavour and success, encourages the new and others trying to break into parliament, and helps those whose popularity has put them there already. It incentivises parties to engage more energetically with people so that they will vote for them. It diminishes to an extent the notion of wasted votes. It strikes me as the fairest way of distributing taxpayers’ money to parties.

However, I think the second criterion of the review – winning two seats – is unfair. It is under this criterion that MK would fail to receive public funding which I think is unfair.

The two-seat criterion merely rewards the presently successful, and does not help those attempting to break into parliament. I think the effect is likely to be to restrict competition to among the present parties in parliament and give them public money to maintain their positions and help keep out other competitors. Yet the case for public finance is that it in our interests in a democracy to have parties compete for votes in terms of their values and policies more than their purses, to have an open market of competing ideas; and that means in 2007 helping parties to be financially able to campaign for their policies. The two-seat criterion further disadvantages parties like MK by giving its opponents already in parliament more and it nothing. It is ludicrously unfair that Labour and the Conservatives, who spent about £18 million each in the last general election, should under the fifty pence suggestion get public money and MK none at all. The review’s two-seat proposals mean that those who vote for MK would find their tax money was used to finance other parties they did not vote for but not MK which they did vote for.

We should encourage the new in politics as we do in industry and commerce: let the clash of ideas in the marketplace of politics help voters decide. But we have to give every party as fair a chance of competing as possible.

The basis of funding should be committed taking part not winning, participation not present success. This votes-only criterion would not encourage people and groups to stand for election merely in order to get money through the taxpayers’ fifty pence. Winning a hundred votes would give you £50 a year for about four years, not enough to cover a lost deposit.

Of course these more open criteria would mean public money for the BNP (about £96 000 a year based on 2005, I think) for example. I do like this but so be it. If people vote for them there simply is not a case against their getting money; parties would not be getting public money on the basis of their values and policies but of their votes.

The two-seat criterion creates an injustice for MK. On the basis of the 2005 general election MK would get about £1800 a year. And indeed it should. I still shan’t vote for it.

The government has given councils the chance to suggest changes to the present arrangements for local government. Cornwall county council, controlled by Liberal Democrats, has proposed a unitary council for Cornwall, replacing the county and district councils; most of the district councils have proposed an alternative scheme.

Much play was made by the county Liberal Democrats about a Cornwall unitary council being able to draw down additional powers from the regional authorities such as the development agency and NHS boards. Cornwall Liberal Democrat MPs supported the unitary proposals and the consequent taking back of powers from regional bodies; for example here. The unitary council of these county proposals would, it seemed to some, be pretty much a regional assembly in all but name.

Mebyon Kernow said that drawing down was not on offer.

Who was right?

Now there is an item on the Mebyon Kernow website about a meeting at county hall on 9 March 2007 with a government representative. Dick Cole, the MK leader, asked him directly about the proposed unitary council drawing down extra powers. The representative said, equally directly apparently, that there was no question of it; a unitary council was just that, no extra powers were available.

That is very clear. A key plank in the Liberal Democrat unitary scheme, the very reason for it perhaps, has been blown away. Will the Liberal Democrats explain how they got it wrong or withdraw their unitary proposal which MK has said is based on a “false premise”?

However, perhaps all is not what it seems. If a unitary council were established, it would be able to press continually for additional powers. Over time it might well succeed for decentralisation looks like a trend and no present arrangement is likely to last unchanged. No extra powers are on offer now but that does not mean they will not be in the future.

MK seems to be saying, devolution and no half measures. That has clarity. But perhaps it would be wiser to accept a half measure now so that one is better placed to get more later. The Liberal Democrats might have the last laugh.

Now see this updated post of April 14.

The quick answer is No

For details read on…

Mebyon Kernow, which calls itself “the party for Cornwall,” has fought in eight of the ten general elections from 1970 to 2005. Just over two million people in Cornwall voted in those eight elections and MK won a total of 16 166 votes. Counting only the seats MK fought during those eight elections, MK’s overall share of the votes is less than two percent. In the last general election in 2005 slightly fewer than one in about sixty voters in the four seats it contested chose MK.

One in sixty.

I think that is a decisive judgement. MK does not speak for the people of Cornwall. It speaks for hardly anyone in Cornwall.

In the last county council elections in 2005 MK did not win any of the eighty two seats. Its candidates polled 9 421 votes against 289 000 for all the others. Though MK did not put up candidates in all the seats, it presumably fought where it believed its prospects were best.

Again the results show that MK speaks for only a small minority.

There are 249 council seats in the six Cornwall districts. MK holds six seats. I haven’t counted how many parish/town council seats there are - hundreds, I suppose - but MK has twenty seats on them.

By any measure, at any level, people in Cornwall do not vote for MK in any numbers. Its election results are pitiful. It is the party the voters of Cornwall have rejected.

In December 2006 an MK rally at Bodmin to celebrate the anniversary of the petition for a devolved assembly in Cornwall attracted about 100 or so people.