"The Commonwealth of Britain" - Republican UK Wikibox TL
- Thread starter powerab
- Start date
Closer Look, New Statesman Article on Russell Brand
Russell Brand endorses Natalie Bennett, teases future run for office
By Anoosh Chakelian
Natalie Bennett received a boost today as she received an official endorsement from Russell Brand.
Brand, the controversial comedian and revolutionary campaigner, made his first remarks about Bennett. He was very complimentary. Speaking as a surprise guest at a Progressive Alliance rally in Manchester Brand gave his backing to Bennett:
“Natalie Bennett is fantastic. She’s spearheading widespread democratic change so that people can take part in politics.”
Brand encouraged rally attendees to put Bennett as their first choice, and admitted he would put Ed Miliband second.
“Not only have we got to get brilliant people like Natalie, Alex and Shahrar in, but we need to keep the likes of Michael Howard and Nigel Farage out.”
Brand has worked with the Green Home Secretary on drugs policy before, but he hasn't until now given his view on her in light of the upcoming election.
There have been recent reports that the Greens wouldn't welcome Brand's help. Speculation that the party embodies his political philosophy and that he could become the "Green Nigel Farage". In January, the Mail quoted a senior party source saying his association with the party would be "toxic". Jason Kitcat, chair of the “Realist Caucus” of moderate and centrist Green MPs said Brand was “not a serious person” and would turn the Greens into a “reality TV show”.
But either this view has changed, or it was never held in the first place, as a party spokesperson now tells me:
“It is of course great to have the support of someone who is campaigning on issues that are vital to the future of this country. Russell provides a voice for so many people feeling cut off and disaffected. His support, along with the decision made by Jack Monroe to join the Green Party, shows that more people are seeing political change as possible."
Brand’s decision to directly endorse a Presidential candidate has fuelled speculation that he might seek political office, after he claimed a stranger left 400k and a note asking him to run for President on his front door.
On Twitter, Green Senator Derek Wall encouraged Brand to apply to be a Green Senate candidate in the 2015 Senate elections.
With 11 million Twitter followers Brand would bring some much needed publicity to the Greens. Speaking on his podcast, Brand said the following: “Like I don’t think I could ever officially join a party, follow the whip, do what I’m told y’know. But if someone said to me we’d endorse you and you could keep your independence, I’d definitely think about it. But at the same time I’m scared I’ll become one of them.”
Brand’s endorsed Independent idea is nothing new. In 2003 Ken Livingstone ran to be Labour’s nominee for President despite being a registered independent. The Greens especially have embraced independent candidates, for example they added Independent anti-austerity campaigner Claire Wright to their South West electoral list for the 2014 Parliamentary Election.
Many have complained about the “Americanisation” and “celebritization” of British politics. The Labour Party received criticism for sending comedian Eddie Izzard to the Senate in 2011. Rumours swirl of other Labour celebrities being propelled to the top of electoral lists, such as actor Martin Freeman, and “The Voice” winner Jermain Jackman.
But lacking the star power of the main parties the Greens can’t afford to be picky. Brand’s endorsement has brought them some much needed media attention and even a small bounce in the polls. When British politics feels like one big reality TV show, perhaps a TV star is what you need.
- 6th April 2014
2014 Presidential Debate Part 4, Foreign Affairs
Europe would dominate discussions on international policy
The debate then moved to the issue of foreign affairs. Candidates were asked about their views on Britain's place in the world and the effectiveness of foreign intervention, with Howard’s record on Libya used as an example.
Bennett was selected to speak first.
“Not so long ago politicians in this country spoke of an ethical foreign policy. Very quickly that began to sound like a sick joke. We saw not only the disastrous intervention in Iraq, but this country continuing to fall lockstep with the US' foreign policy interests. President Howard has engaged in dangerous, hawkish foreign policy from Tehran to Tripoli. Working against the common good, against the security and well-being of people around the world. Too often we're making worse the problems that face the world around us. Whether that's climate change, whether it's global poverty and inequality. These things are still happening, we're still making many of these problems worse, not better. We have the opportunity to change direction, contribute to the well-being of the world on a shared basis."
Audiences reacted well to Bennett's speech
Bennett knew foreign policy was the area where she was the weakest, the Alliance’s pacifist foreign policy was out of step with conventional thinking and she had often come unstuck during interviews on the issues. However Bennett made a convincing case for an ethical foreign policy, drawing a line between restraint abroad and security at home.
Michael Howard came back on Bennett’s points.
"Over the last ten years I've restored the credibility of British foreign policy, refocusing on three clear principles. Protecting our security, promoting our prosperity and projecting our values. I've expanded Britain's diplomatic network and I've helped British firms do business abroad. In Europe I've led the debate on a more competitive, more accountable EU. What's dangerous about that? I'll tell you what's dangerous, throwing away our nuclear deterrent is dangerous, turning away from our allies in NATO is dangerous. Most importantly unquestioningly embracing Brussels is dangerous. As President I will negotiate a new deal for Britain in the EU, but the final decision will be made by you, in an in-out referendum in 2016. I won’t turn my back on the world like Nigel and Natalie want."
Howard went on the attack against Bennett, highlighting her pacifist credentials. He also knew he had to fend off a challenge from Nigel Farage and made his European policy a large plank of his foreign policy argument.
Nigel Farage saw his chance to enter the fray.
Farage lacked any foreign policy experience, so he tried to pivot back to the EU
“Look, I want to cooperate with other countries, I want to be friends with other countries, I want to trade with other countries. The people on this stage act like Europe is the entire world, it's not. By obsessing over Europe we ignore a whole other world. There's the UN Security Council, there's the WTO, over a hundred other international organisations. Again, none of these arguments matter whilst we're in the European Union. Whilst we're in the EU our international power is at risk, we have been relegated to observer status in the WTO since 1975, because we are members of the EU. This will only get worse over time, senior EU figures are now talking up a European Army. The EU diminishes our role in international affairs, we are weaker in the EU. The truth is President Howard doesn't run our foreign policy, the EU does.”
For a populist, Farage’s discussion of the WTO and UN Security Council was strange and over technical. His argument hit home for those who disliked the EU but he failed to highlight any other UKIP policies on defence or international intervention.
Ed Miliband decided to step in.
Miliband had met with US President Obama earlier in the year
“Ultimately whatever Nigel tells you it doesn't matter. He can say whatever he wants because he'll never have to deal with the consequences of his actions. He'll never have to look our troops in the eye before committing to a decision. This election is a choice between President Howard's failing plan and a better plan from Labour. I will ensure Britain succeeds in a challenging and changing world. In the face of new and emerging threats, President Howard has overseen the greatest loss of British influence in a generation. When it comes to Europe he spent years burning bridges instead of building alliances. Now many Conservatives say they would vote to leave, and President Howard refuses to say which way he'd vote. The right course for Britain comes from reform in Europe, not exit from Europe. There is nothing splendid about isolation in the 21st century.”
Miliband made an emotional pitch for his foreign policy, invoking a passion rarely seen in the technocratic Senator. He railed against isolationism and swung back against both Farage and Howard.
Farage had been criticised for his closeness to the American far-right
Nick Clegg was the last to speak.
“For too long President Howard has built foreign policy around beating other nations with increasingly larger sticks. Now the Middle East is less stable than ever. British foreign policy should focus on promoting peace, human rights, democracy and trade. All people deserve a freer, greener, more prosperous world. That's why in Government the Lib Dems met our commitment to give 1% of GDP in foreign aid and created the international climate fund. I want Britain to be a leader in the world. We must be thus at the heart of the European Union and not cut ourselves from our strongest friends and allies. My priority would be to prevent conflict through strong international institutions. President Howard has done tremendous damage to Britain's reputation abroad, I will rebuild it. Britain must learn to work with others again. Only then will we have a freer, greener and more prosperous world.”
Clegg was unlucky in that he was chosen to go last, and that his speech sounded almost identical to Miliband's. Like Miliband, he attacked Howard and promoted the virtues of internationalism.
Clegg was accused of plagiarising Miliband's response
To what extent was Howard responsible for Britain's deteriorating relationship with Europe (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)
Does it end with Ed Balls clutching a knife in a corner as you see a door being broken down, when Nick Clegg appears shouting, "HERE'S CLEGGIE...."
Closer Look, CBC Interview with Brian Topp
Brian Topp Interview with Peter Mansbridge
PM - Now if you don’t mind Prime Minister I’d like to move onto the issue of the monarchy. In Australia they’ve committed to a referendum on transitioning to a Republic. If they do it will be the largest loss to the Royal Family since the Diana Crisis, and it would leave Canada and New Zealand as the only so called “core Commonwealth countries” left supporting the Monarchy. A National Post poll found 40% of Canadians are in favour of abolishing the monarchy. Is it time for Canada to follow Great Britain?
BT - Well of course the monarchy does need reform. And I say this to her majesty whenever I meet her. But I am concerned a referendum would be a distraction from the great change we are striving for here in Canada.
PM - What kind of reforms did you discuss? Canada is the largest provider of both funds and security to the Royal Family so your input here really matters.
BT - Well I don’t want to get into that. We’ve got a monumental task in repairing the damage Stephen Harper has done and building on the legacy of Jack Layton...
PM - *Interrupts* So you’re not looking at monarchical reform?
BT - Well of course we’re looking at it but I think ordinary Canadians are much more concerned with keeping food on the table than tinkering around with the constitution.
PM - Do you think abolishing the monarchy would be a bad thing for Canada?
BT - I think it would be incredibly divisive, I think a referendum would cost a lot of money and a lot of political capital that could be better spent elsewhere. I’m not sure if the monarchy is the best thing for our country, but changing it is way down on my priority list.
PM - So you’re not going to touch it?
BT - I wouldn’t say that. I’ve been having very frank conversations with her majesty and the Prince of Wales and what I say to them is look, the waters rising, you’re running out of options. Maybe it's best to go quietly rather than be pushed.
PM - Abdication?
BT - I think it would be best for Canada and best for the Commonwealth of Nations if we had a new, less controversial face at the top.
PM - The Duke of Cambridge? Prince William?
BT - Again I really didn’t want to get into this but I think a referendum would be a divisive distraction whilst we’re trying to tackle climate change. If I was the Queen I’d be thinking carefully about my options, that’s all I’m going to say.
PM - And how did her majesty respond to your suggestion?
BT - As I said we had a very frank conversation. She will do what she thinks is best for our Commonwealth of Nations.
PM - And if they refuse to step aside what then? Would you give your backing to a referendum?
BT - Look we’ve got oil and gas companies running rampant in this country, that is my main focus, protecting our climate. Yes something would have to be done but it’s really not the pressing issue right now.
PM - Some say that if the Queen and Prince of Wales were to abdicate, they would lose their legal protections and could then be charged for their involvement in the Diana Crisis. Would you support that?
BT - That sounds a hell of a lot like a constitutional crisis to me. That would be a matter for the courts and the police. I think it would raise more questions that it would answer. Look Peter we’ve spent a lot of time talking about the Royals. I’ve got a new, ambitious comprehensive plan on climate change that we’re putting in place and I’d really love to talk about it….
- CBC News - The National, 9th April 2014
Why would William be Duke of Cambridge if they’re no longer the Royal Family of the United Kingdom? Wouldn’t it make more sense to create Royal Dukedoms based in Canada?
Traditionally royals in exile have kept their traditional titles even if they do no de facto rule the land, for example Georg Friedrich the pretender to the German throne still holds the title of "Prince of Prussia"
This deposed Royal Family still has vast, populous lands to rule over.
This is not merely keeping an already existing title, this is recreating a title they have no legal reason to hold.
That is fair, I guess I'd justify it by saying the Royals don't accept their exile and still expect to be invited back at any minute, by relinquishing the title of Prince of Wales ect they also admit defeat, which they're hesitant to do.
I’m saying that, legally, they have reason to still hold onto pre-Diana titles. Prince of Wales and similar titles are still extant and they‘re still probably able to make a claim to them, however flimsy. But to create a new title claiming land in a separate, sovereign nation is to cause a diplomatic incident immediately.
So the NDP won Canadian elections and Topp is the current (2014) Canada's Prime Minister?
Yes, so general trend in the Anglo-sphere is that pro-monarchy parties (so mostly conservative parties) do a bit worse that OTL due to their toxic associations with the monarchy. Stephen Harper especially was a loud and proud monarchist. Thus both the NDP and Liberals both did a fair bit better than OTL, leading to an NDP Government propped up by the Liberals. Layton still died in 2011, and since the NDP was more self confident than OTL they picked Topp as their new leader and Prime Minister.
2014 Presidential Debate, Part 5, Closing Remarks
Ed Miliband had spent a great deal of time preparing for the debates
After two hours of debate It now came time for the candidates to make a brief closing statement, to summarise why they deserved to be President and what they hoped to achieve during their time in office.
Nick Clegg was called up first.
“Thank you for sitting through this two hour political marathon. I have one last thing to ask you. When you vote, make sure you decide what's best for your family and your country. Above all make sure we don't lurch this way or that. Make sure that we don't borrow too much or cut too much. In other words, make sure when you vote we keep our country stable and strong and fair. We have a plan and the plan is working. The only way we can do that is by finishing the job the Liberal Democrats started six years ago. Balancing the books and putting money into our public services. Because that's the only way we can create a society we all want. A society where we have a stronger economy and a fairer society with opportunity for everyone.”
Clegg’s speech seemed like a spitting image parody of a Liberal Democrat speech. His overarching message that the other parties were out of control and he needed to be in Buckingham to control them was somewhat overruled by the fact he had served in coalition with both of them.
Clegg had been devastated by the line: "Mr Mayor you're no Charles Kennedy" said by Natalie Bennett during the debate
Ed Miliband was next.
“You've heard from five candidates tonight, but there is one fundamental choice at this election. Myself, or President Howard. Do we build a Britain that puts working people first or do we carry on with a President that's not on your side? When I'm President I'll make sure we reward the hard work of everybody in our country, not just those at the very top. When I'm President I'll take on those energy companies that are ripping you off. When I'm President everyone will play by the same rules, I won't give the green-light to tax avoidance. Finally when I'm President we'll cut the deficit every year and balance the books whilst protecting health and education. There is a big choice at this election. When working people succeed we all succeed. Our Labour cabinet has started the job, but they need help in Buckingham to finish it. Let's bring the change that Britain needs.”
"Bring the Change" had been one of the Miliband campaign's rejected slogans
Miliband had put in a decent but not earth-shattering debate performance, he successfully stuck to his script and framed the Presidential race as a battle between himself and Howard, he looked directly into the camera and appealed to voter’s emotions, but would it be enough to take Buckingham?
Next to step up was Michael Howard.
“Thank you. I've been your President for the last ten years. My whole life has been about public service. All that time I've tried to have one task in mind, turning our economy round and putting the country on the path to prosperity. I want to stand for another five years because I want to finish the job I started ten years ago. The last Conservative Government created a million jobs and cut the deficit by a third, let's create a million more, and clear our debts. We invested in our national health service, and I want to make it a true seven day a week service. My plan is one word; security. Security for you, for your family, for our country. This is an amazing country, but Ed Balls and Labour are taking us back. There's a fundamental choice at this election, the two Eds who want to drive us back off a cliff, or me and my team. Let's finish the job, not go back to square one.”
Howard used a negative debating strategy, warning of the damage the "two Eds" could bring
It was probably a mistake for the 74 year old to remind his audience how long he’d been in power. Like Miliband he stuck to his script on the threat of an uncontrolled Labour Government, but debating had never been Howard’s strong suit and he remained dull and technocratic.
Nigel Farage spoke next.
“You see I warned you at the beginning, I told you they were all the same. pro-EU, pro-uncontrolled immigration and anti-British. What you've seen tonight is the politically correct political class, all very keen to be popular on the world stage. They don't understand the thoughts, hopes and aspirations of ordinary working people. They are detached. Most of them have never had a real job in their lives. What I represent is plainspoken patriotism. I believe in this country, I believe in it's people, Britain can be a lot better than this. But if you want things to be shaken up and to change properly you need to vote for it. Imagine the message you can send to the political class if they wake up with a President they can't control. Let's do it, let's change the game.”
Farage’s railing against political correctness worked for Express readers but in turned off many swing voters. Whilst his anti-establishment message was effective he often found himself in the shadow of Howard, who had similar views but a much better chance of winning.
Farage made not attempt to unite his party, or reach out to Howard voters
Natalie Bennett was called to close the debate.
"If you want change you have to vote for it. Vote for what you believe in. You don't have to go on voting for the lesser of two evils. That's how we ended up with the tired failed politics of the past. In 2011 voters went with their hearts, and delivered the first non-establishment coalition in a generation. If you want a fair economy, public NHS and a stable climate, vote for change, vote Bennett/Salmond. Already in Parliament we've seen Progressive MPs make a huge impact. We need a Progressive President to back them up. With a Progressive President we can deliver a new kind of politics, you can deliver a new kind of politics. A peaceful political revolution. Wherever you are; in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland if you're thinking about voting for me, do it. Your vote will count. You will change this country forever."
Bennett’s lofty rhetoric worked in a Presidential debate and captured the hopeful message of her campaign. She had greatly exceeded expectations, her years as Home Secretary honing her into a seasoned politician.
As the debate wrapped up, pundits looked to the snap polls. The polls showed no clear winner with most of the candidates fairly close to each other, Bennett and Miliband drew on top with 24% of respondents each declaring them the winner, 22% for Howard, 20% for Farage and 10% for Clegg. For Bennett the debates had been a great breakthrough, she had proven herself as a serious politician, Miliband too had a strong night but failed to pull away from the crowd. Howard and Farage both failed to impress either way whilst Clegg languished at the bottom of the pack.
Clegg and Farage were both considered the debate's losers
No one “won” the 2014 Presidential Debate, discuss (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)
2014 Elections, Part 2
With a bad debate and poor polling, Clegg was running out of options
“The debate was disastrous for the Liberal Democrats. The party emerged from the trauma of Thursday battered and bruised. It was unsurprising that there was a soft coup launched in the aftermath of the debate. The rift within the party only grew as Senator Matthew Oakeshott lost the whip after he was caught briefing against Nick Clegg. This managed to make an already torrid time for the Liberal Democrats even worse. Senator Oakeshott was known as the leading ally of Vince Cable and supporter of the coalition government. He had a vast personal wealth and the connection to the Social Liberal Caucus of left-wing Lib Dem MPs. Unfortunately for everyone involved, Oakeshott's briefing spectacularly backfired. Vince Cable issued a statement condemning what had happened. The end result of this was Senator Oakeshott leaving the party. The whole scenario had been a total debacle for the party. They had given up several days of media coverage to discuss how fractious and ill-disciplined they were.” - Is there’s still hope for the Lib Dems, Lecture by Tim Oliver, LSE
Things went from bad to worse for the Lib Dem campaign after Clegg’s disastrous debate performance. This culminated in a series of gaffes by Clegg. During a rally in Cardiff, Clegg mispronounced “the budget” as “the badger”. Clegg had supporters laughing when he mispronounced the word budget while trying to make a serious point. He told the audience gathered in Cardiff: "When me and Danny [Alexander] meet the Prime Minister in Buckingham to hammer out the badget, budget, oh badget. Sorry, not badger, budget." Delegates began to laugh and an embarrassed Clegg continued: "Badgers can rest tonight." Whilst it wasn’t a massive mistake, it did go viral on social media.
Clegg was booed by students at an event in Wakefield College
“Nick Clegg has urged voters to resist the "lure of false patriotism", as he drew comparisons between the Progressive Alliance and UKIP. Nick Clegg said both were seeking to "break apart" established partnerships between nations. Clegg said: "In politics, there is always the temptation to overstretch an analogy. I'm not going to claim that Plaid Cymru and UKIP are the same. There are very big differences. But they do both want to bring an end to a partnership between nations that has been forged over time and serves us well. And they both represent the same impulse: to pull away, to break apart." The Sheffield Mayor said he would fight for "unity, togetherness and openness." "I will give people a reason to resist the lure of false patriotism - wherever it rears its head. I will provide a positive vision for a prosperous future, filled with possibility - for every part of the Commonwealth. Britain is at its best when we are united, when we stand tall in our own backyard, when we are open, outward-facing and engaged . That is the Britain I will protect." - Clegg says 'resist false patriotism' of SNP and UKIP, BBC Wales
However the biggest pain for the Liberal campaign was the increasingly hostile between the Clegg and Cable camps of the party. Clegg’s allies accused supporters of Vince Cable of plotting to undermine the Sheffield Mayor's campaign. Senator Oakeshott, a close friend of Vince Cable, was rumoured to be briefing against the Clegg campaign to the media. Allies of Clegg demanded that Oakeshott had the whip removed. The row increasingly hurt the campaign, with some polls showing Clegg coming last in the first round, behind Bennett. Some senior Lib Dems believed Clegg's brazen campaign against the Labour Government was "poisoning the well" for any future coalition negotiations. Polls showed Clegg not only losing the Presidency, but also his Sheffield Mayoralty. In response Cable released a statement backing Mr Clegg and insisted there was “no issue” between the two men. One minister close to Clegg told The Telegraph that the “Oakeshott never stops trying to undermine Nick and it's right he lost the whip.
On the other side of the coin, Natalie Bennett tried to build on the momentum of the debate, declaring a “Progressive Surge”. Polls showed Progressive parties surging across the country, with the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon tipped to win the Scottish Premiership and the Greens poised to win the Mayoralty of Norwich, Brighton and Bristol. A YouGov survey for the Sun put Bennett on 11%, the highest ever result for the Home Secretary with the leading pollster. Bennett's average polling score with YouGov had risen by three percentage points since the campaign began. The poll marked the second time that week that YouGov had put Bennett ahead of Nick Clegg (10% in latest poll). Most notably, Bennett was polling at 22% of the vote among under-25s, a 12% gain since the start of the campaign. This put Bennett at 2nd place amongst under-25s. A Lord Ashcroft Parliamentary poll put the Progressive Alliance at a combined total of 90 seats, meaning the block would have more MPs than the Lib Dems or UKIP.
The Progressive Alliance looked set to receive much of the protest vote that had gone to the Lib Dems in 2009
“Natalie Bennett is ahead of Nick Clegg in a national opinion poll. YouGov research for the Sun has Miliband on 32%, three points ahead of Howard on 29%, Farage on 20%, Bennett on 10% and Clegg on 9%. The poll findings maintain Ukip’s surge in popularity. The Greens have been ahead of the Lib Dems in polls before, but never with YouGov. The resurgent Green party is to target seventy seats across the UK, which it believes it could win in May’s election, as confidence grows. Natalie Bennett said that the weakness of the Tories and Labour, pointed to the election being the most difficult to predict of recent times. One in which the Greens could step in and gain five dozen seats or more. The Greens, who currently hold only 29 seats, have been creeping up in the polls over recent months. Most national surveys have put them between 7% and 10%, within touching distance of the Lib Dems. Bennett said that as well as defending Norwich, where Adrian Ramsay is the incumbent, the national party has its eye on another 3 Mayor offices. She believes winning around five is not out of the question.” - Bennett ahead of Clegg in YouGov poll, Toby Helm, The Observer (2014)
Bennett's surge spooked Labour. Alongside their environmentalist platform, the Greens promoted policies with appeal to Labour voters. Miliband was concerned that if Bennett's voters chose not to place a second preference it could cost him the election. In a close contest with Howard, the level of the Green vote could make the difference between winning and losing. In response Miliband appointed Yorkshire Senator Jon Trickett to lead a unit on addressing the threat. Trickett, a leading figure on the left of the party was regarded as a figure well placed to reach out to Green voters. That the party took the step of creating the role showed how seriously it took the Green challenge. They avoided the complacency that some Tories demonstrated towards Ukip. It also showed the growing strength of the left of the Labour Party with serial rebel Jon Trickett being given such a senior role.
Miliband believed the campaign should focus on uniting Green and Liberal voters behind one movement, whilst Balls believed Labour had to do more to reach out to Tory and UKIP voters
Miliband spent the last few days of the campaign in Anglia to argue Labour had the solutions to give Ukip voters a stake in society again. In Essex, Miliband reiterated his admission that his party failed in the past to listen to complaints about immigration. The Labour nominee was facing severe criticism both on and off the record from his MPs and pollsters over the style of his election campaign. Despite strong polling in London, Labour lagged behind the Tories in Southern England. Miliband was also under pressure to give a bigger role to Ed Balls and other members of the cabinet. Balls believed he had put together a set of policies to appeal to Ukip supporters alienated from mainstream politics. But he needed Miliband to find a way to convince them. One senior Senator urged Labour to stop the "madness" of senior figures briefing against one another in the wake of the TV debate. John Woodcock, Senator for the North West and chair of the "Progressive Caucus" of moderate Labour legislators said the tight polling showed everyone in the party needed to raise their game.
As the last days of the campaign slipped away, Howard held a low profile campaign away from the cameras, Farage rallied the troops in his Kent heartland. As families up and down Britain settled in for another long election night, polls showed it would be one of the closest elections in Commonwealth history.
“New analysis confirms that the student vote could tip the balance of power at the elections in 2014. The student vote swung towards the Liberal Democrats in 2002, 2005 and 2009 and is set to swing towards Labour at the 2014 election. This is according to the report which is published and co-authored by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI). The report is based on a statistical analysis of data from the British Election Study. As well as qualitative interviews with university and local authority personnel. It concludes that the student vote could be pivotal to the success of political parties in the next election. This is because of the close opinion polls, a fall in student support for the Liberal Democrats and UKIP’s relative lack of success among students. The report adds that since the last election, the student vote has moved towards the Greens as well as Labour. - 'Students could tip balance of power at next election, Paper by Stephen Fisher, University of Oxford
Miliband relied on students turning out to vote for him
To what extent did party infighting affect the 2014 elections? (30 Marks) - A Level Politics Exam (2019)