European Election results coming in

[Edric O]

We interrupt the usual fare of American politics with news from the world's second-largest elections after those of India...

Results from the elections for the European Parliament have started coming in. Most countries voted today, though some voted earlier in the week and delayed counting votes until today so as not to influence others. For an up-to-date seat count, click here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/flash/html/eu.stm

Quick overview of the situation: Massive, unmitigated victory for the status quo. Ruling parties won in almost every country. For all the talk about big change on the other side of the Atlantic, nothing at all seems to be changing in Europe. In the middle of the greatest global recession since 1929, this is very strange. Maybe the record low turnout can account for it.

Detailed results:

First, a list and short description of the voting blocs ("parties") in the European Parliament, for the benefit of non-European posters. Roughly from left to right, they are as follows.

1. The Left (officially, the "European Left Party") - a group consisting of socialists and communists. Farther to the left than anything you may find in American politics. They are the only group that actively talks about class struggle. The Left supports workers in strikes and other conflicts with bosses, and they are anti-market and anti-business. Most, though not all, call for the abolition of capitalism. They generally believe that the EU is a good idea in principle but very badly implemented in practice.

2. The social democrats (officially, the "Party of European Socialists," where the term "socialist" is left over from history) - the mainstream center-left bloc. Roughly the equivalent of the most left-wing Democrats in the US, or the NDP in Canada. They support the welfare state and egalitarian measures within the framework of a market economy... or at least they used to. In recent years they've been drifting towards the right. They are vehemently pro-EU.

3. The Greens (officially, well, "The Greens") - pretty self-explanatory, really. They are strong environmentalists with generally center-left views on other political issues. The equivalent of the Green Party in the US and Canada. They are mostly, but not terribly strongly, pro-EU.

4. The liberals (officially, the "Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe") - your standard classical liberal group, with a number of generic centrists thrown in. They are usually the most pro-business, pro-market group in the European Parliament. They don't have a direct equivalent in American or Canadian politics, but they are very much like the most pro-business elements in the mainstream politics of those countries (note I said mainstream; libertarians are similar, but far too extreme to qualify). The liberals are utterly in love with the EU, making them the most pro-EU group in Parliament.

5. The conservatives (officially, the "European People's Party") - the mainstream center-right bloc. They support capitalism and the market economy, within certain limits, they tend to uphold established tradition, talk a lot about law and order, and are uneasy about immigration. They are pretty much the equivalent of the Democratic Party in the US, as well as the more moderate Republicans. Both Obama and McCain would fit in here (though Sarah Palin would not). They are also the equivalent of most Liberals and Conservatives in Canada, again with the exception of the more radical wings of each party. If this sounds like a broad range of opinions, that's because it is. The EPP is by far the "biggest tent" in the European Parliament. Most of them are vehemently pro-EU, with the notable exception of the British Conservatives, who are anti-EU and said they would leave the EPP over this issue.

6. The radical conservatives (officially, the "Union for a Europe of Nations") - the farther-right-but-not-extreme-right group. They support capitalism and the market economy, with much fewer limits, they very strongly uphold establish tradition, they put law and order at the center of their agenda and they vehemently oppose immigration. They are the equivalent of most of the Republican Party in the US, and the more extreme Conservatives in Canada. This is the group that the British Conservatives are thinking of joining (and taking over, since they are larger than the rest of it combined). The UEN is anti-EU, but they only wish to reduce the extent and power of the EU - not abolish it.

7. The eurosceptics (officially, "Independence and Democracy") - the vehemently anti-EU group, formed largely but not entirely of right-wing nationalists. They are united by one goal: The abolition of the EU. Other than that, their opinions run the range of the political spectrum. They are a right-wing group because about half of their membership consists of the British UKIP, which would feel at home in the UEN if not for its much more extreme anti-EU stance.

8. Non-aligned. This is not a group, but a collection of Members of Parliament who do not belong to any group. They include a few genuine independents, but most of them are members of far-right parties who can't get together to form a group because they all hate each other (seeing how they hate foreigners and all that). The two issues that are central to all those far-right groups are opposition to immigration and the destruction of the EU. The ones in Western Europe tend to want to kill, *ahem*, deport Muslims, and those in Eastern Europe tend to want to kill Jews and Gypsies (and I mean openly so).

* * * * *

Now, having said all that, on to the actual results:

- No significant change for the Left (they lost 2 seats, but this Parliament is smaller than the previous one). Total: 35 seats.

- Crushing defeat for the social democrats, who lost 18 seats in an economic climate where the election should have been theirs for the taking. Total: 185 seats.

- Major gains for the Greens. They jumped from 41 to 50 seats, and out of a smaller Parliament, too. Total: 50 seats.

- No real change for the liberals (lost 3 seats). Total: 83 seats.

- The conservatives only lost 20 seats, despite the desertion of the entire British Conservative faction from the EPP (which accounts for 29 seats). In other words, the non-British EPP gained 9 seats. They remain by far the largest group in the European Parliament, and pretty much won these elections. Total: 262 seats.

- The radical conservatives of the UEN won a paltry 2 seats compared with last time, but if the British Conservatives join them they could double their numbers and match the Greens. Total: 25 seats without the Brits or 54 seats with them.

- The eurosceptics of ID got trounced and lost almost half their seats. Total: 21 seats. Since you need a minimum of 25 seats to form a group, this might be the end of them.

- The far-right picked up a few seats. They came second in the Netherlands with 4 seats, they picked up a seat in the UK for the first time, they got 3 seats in Hungary, 5 in Romania, and generally caused a great deal of moral indignation among other parties. It's still questionable whether they will have enough MEPs to form a group even if they wanted to, however. And it looks like Vlaams Belang got badly beaten in Belgium.

Also, an MEP from the anti-copyright Pirate Party was elected in Sweden.

Overall, like I said, a rather inexplicable victory for the status quo. Turnout, however, was only 43% Europe-wide - and below even 20% in some countries.

[Sneakgab]

(edit) Now that I think about I was absent-mindedly thinking in terms or regular elections here. So maybe I'll review my comments here. (edit)

Are you sure you are not describing the parties as they are supposed to be as opposed to how they actually are? From your description it sounds suspiciously as though all the parties actually follow their ideologies and the policies one would expect for such ideology holders. In my experience, parties behaving as such occurs far less frequently.

In particular I ask for more information on the so-called left. Have these parties behaved as one would expect of their ideologies (that they claim to hold) when given the chance in the past? How many of these parties are stalinists who believe in the two-stage theory of class collaboration?

At least, their attitude towards the EA is fitting, as it is said that the class struggle should and must be international.

The crushing of the social democrats and the low voter turnout is to be expected, if the  EU elections and practices are anything like those of a typical nation (43% voter turnout, wasn't the voter turnout in the last British election around 40-45%?). The social democrats too frequently just another typical conservative party that does nothing for the workers and poor. As you said they have been drifiting to the right. As a result, people lose interest in the social democrats because they do not behave as such. Not to mention, no one encourage their drift, I suppose. In any case, anyone voting for these parties with a hope that a gradual transition to socialism will occur has by now probably come to belive that this is close to impossibe (or just plain impossible)

People no longer have faith that their votes have real impact.

The latest bullsh!t the media seemed to try to be portraying about this was most amusing: The interview involved somebody explaining that the recent elections voter turnout suffered because people were more interested in gossip about celebrities and the like. Well, the turnout has been decreasing for some time now (2 decades was it?). Is that to suggest that there is a trend of increasing interest in gossip for the last 2 decades? The simple truth is obvious, people, correctly or otherwise, are beginning to feel that their involvement in politics is a waste of their time.

The attempts to paint prettier pictures are becoming increasingly absurd. Well, I can't say that all the news networks are like this just because of 1 instance though (of course).

It is not surprising that the liberals and conservatives support the EU. They desire a global free market and probably think that the EU will facilitate movement towards such state of affairs.

The conservatives have also been known (or at least suspected of) blatantly serving the interests of the big businesses. Since these parties often seem to think that the big businesses are completely neccessary and that their failure would mean the doom of all and because these parties very often receive the majority of their campaign funds from such companies along with the actions these parties take, such a notion seems to be far from absurd (not to say that I support it though). This may be another reason for their pro-EU stance; the EU facilitates cheap outsourcing which helps the big businesses

....yes, the conservatives love to spout about the free market, but we shall see how strong their love for it is in the coming months with protectionist measures already beginning to be employed by the countries of the EU (while at the same time along with America they are not likely to change their minds [through the IMF] about opening the markets of those countries unfortunate enough to suffer ''structural adjustment'')

Yes, the measures MAY be seen as benefitting the country that they are applied in, and so the government could be said to be doing it's job. However, the government should also respect the fact that not all of it's populace that it is supposed to serve is neccessarily purely interested in their own welfare. Sometimes the will of the population involves the state of things overseas and ideological issues. Of course, one has to wonder how many remain that think the governments of the world are truly serving their populations.

[Caid Ivik]

Seeing Fidesz and Jobbik getting seats for Hungary is causing quite a rush here, but some of the results are nice - like that of Piratepartiet  :)

[Wolf]

Pretty solid reporting, Edric. You'd make a fantastic correspondent. But, you mentioned:

Quick overview of the situation: Massive, unmitigated victory for the status quo. Ruling parties won in almost every country. For all the talk about big change on the other side of the Atlantic, nothing at all seems to be changing in Europe. In the middle of the greatest global recession since 1929, this is very strange. Maybe the record low turnout can account for it.

And, maybe this is just me, but I sensed, I felt that perhaps you had a thesis underlying that comment that would explain the phenomenon that you weren't quite ready to throw at us just yet and, well, you know, I was just wondering if you might give us a preview? Why has the status quo won in Europe--despite even the EPP's loss of the British conservatives--or do you think this is only a precursor to larger change down the road?

Ha, sorry for a response filled only with questions, but I guess you're now the European Secretary. Have fun.

[Dunenewt]

I didn't end up voting in the elections as I was moving from uni that day, but who wants to guess who I would have voted for?

A few quick things from me:

- The far right party in the UK, the British National Party, gained their first two MEPs in the election, although their leader (one of the new MEPs) Nick Griffin has toned down their rhetoric, attempting to give them a cleaner image, although as the BBC pointed out on the night, their former policies and views will never escape them, with the other MEP, a Mr Brons, being a former member of the extreme right action group the National Front.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8088381.stm

- The Green Party (UK) are slowly rising in popularity despite being mainly ignored by the media.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8088608.stm

- Scottish National Party/Plaid Cymru gains are low, and can be attributed to a loss of support for Labour.

- Although Labour suffered the most, the MPs' expenses scandal and the public's general discontent with politics has affected the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives too, with both failing to make any significant gains at Labour's expense.

- Daniel Hannnam, a Conservative MP, is definitely one to watch for the future, with a superb speech after becoming elected as an MEP, although will possibly face the wrath of the party whips for his comments about the party's position on Europe.

- UKIP have possibly reached their maximum support with people possibly seeing them as a one issue party, although I was impressed with their leader, Nigel Farage, with his interviews with the media.

- I was surprised the English Democrats didn't do better, who are campaigning for an English parliament in response to the devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, although they did do well having one of their members elected as the Mayor of Doncaster in the local elections.

- I was hoping Mebyon Kernow would do better in Cornwall, but I just think that would make it interesting.

[Dragoon Knight]

Glad to hear that The Greens did reasonably well - if I was the type to vote, I would have cast my lot with them.  Out of all the Party Political Broadcasts I saw this year, theirs was the only one that said what I wanted to hear.  Focusing on the environment and renewable energy really needs to be the focus for the future, but their broadcast also removed some of the "tree-hugging" stereotype that I always associated with them.

But of course, no matter how much politicians want us to believe it, EU elections still don't hold enough sway over individual countries to make any real difference just yet.  Maybe if The Greens put up a good enough show for the next UK elections, I might decide to vote.

[Dante]

If you don't vote, you can't complain. If nothing else, the fact that the BNP is still able to make gains is evidence enough of the need to vote against them, even with a purported lack of anything to vote for.

[Dragoon Knight]

Of course I can complain - remember that I'm of the opinion that one vote means nothing, which on a mathematical basis is true.  Whether I voted or not would have made no difference to this election, so I can complain about the outcome either way. :P

The only reason I would vote is if I felt that I supported the view.  It's the same reason I only participate in some online polls - for example, GameFAQs' "Best Game Ever" polls can often be a close call, and you know I'll be backing Final Fantasy VII all the way. :)

[Edric O]

There have been a few small changes in the results as more votes were counted since last night, but nothing significant. Some groups won or lost 1 or 2 more seats than I reported. The new totals are as follows:

Left 34

PES (social democrats) 183

Greens 50

Liberals 84

EPP (conservatives) 264

UEN (radical conservatives) 28

ID (eurosceptics) 21

Non-aligned 72

The large number of non-aligned MEPs is due to some rather large factions - like the British Conservatives - having left their former groups and not yet decided on a new home. It's expected that they will join various groups over the next few weeks and months, so that the number of non-aligned MEPs in the end will be closer to 30. The ID group is too small to continue functioning as it stands, but it may well survive by drawing MEPs from among those currently non-aligned. The UEN group is likely to undergo a complete makeover as it gets taken over by the British Conservatives and possibly renamed to EC (European Conservatives). But it is also possible that the Brits may fail in their negotiations with the UEN and start an entirely new group.

Now... Wolf asked for analysis, and I did plan to launch into an explanation of this victory for the status quo. I gave up on it after I realized I had no good solid theory and could only speculate. But I can at least explain the obvious, immediate causes of the result. And guessing isn't so bad. :) So, here goes.

First, I must note that the elections for the European Parliament always have a certain element of randomness, for two main reasons:

1. The voter turnout is always so low that parties can register massive losses simply because their voters didn't bother to show up. For the same reason, other parties can make spectacular gains without really growing in popularity among the general population.

2. Most people in Europe have no idea what the European Parliament actually does. The media hardly ever reports on it, and its procedures are complicated and often incomprehensible to outsiders. I myself only know what the EP is supposed to do, not what it actually did, say, last year - because I don't want to dig through mountains of legal documents to find out. Because of this total lack of transparency, many people feel that the EP is either unimportant (and therefore vote in random ways) or that it's an elitist, unaccountable oligarchy which needs a good kicking (and therefore vote for the most anti-EU parties they can find, which usually means various nationalists).

Because of the above, a European election result can always be a fluke instead of a reflection of European political trends. But assuming this year's result is not a fluke, I believe there are several factors which may have caused it...

First, the mainstream social democratic parties are in disarray in three large countries, which together account for about a third of all seats: France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The parties in Germany and the UK have moved to the right, and as a result their support grew in the late 1990s, but then began to erode and has fallen off a cliff in recent years. It's beginning to look like running towards the center ground gave them short-term benefits in exchange for a long-term disaster. In the UK, the Labour Party - currently in power under Gordon Brown - alienated its working class base through such measures as eliminating the lowest tax bracket (thus bumping up the poorest people into the next bracket and making them pay more tax) while giving bailouts to banks. They are also currently sinking in a colossal corruption scandal (as are all the other British parties, but Labour is taking more flak because it's in power). They were punished with their worst election result since 1945, due to most former Labour voters staying home.

In Germany, the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) implemented a set of welfare cuts, privatizations and liberal reforms in the early 2000s, called "Agenda 2010," which were so unpopular that they later had to campaign on the promise to repeal them. The whole thing cost them dearly, and they haven't been able to recover since. It also doesn't help that they are currently the junior partner in a grand coalition with Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives, meaning that they're acting like a very spineless opposition at best. Meanwhile, the recently formed Left Party (Linkspartei) - a coalition of hard-left social democrats together with genuine socialists and communists - is eating up many of the SPD's votes and has beaten them into third place in Eastern Germany.

The situation in France is different. There, the mainstream center-left party, PS (Parti Socialiste), has remained center-left and even passed some left-wing reforms when it was in power in the late 1990s and early 2000s - such as the 35-hour work week. But, following a narrow defeat at the 2007 presidential elections, they've been embroiled in a civil war between a faction that wants to move to the left and one that wants to move to the right. This may well end up splitting the PS right down the middle, and it is eroding their credibility. In this year's European elections, the PS lost a lot of votes to a Green candidate list, called Europe-

[Sneakgab]

Much as I thought then, at least in the case of the SPD and labor. Both parties that did not follow their policy lines and so people lost interest in them (who wants to vote for an X party that doesn't do X?). The situation with the PS is somewhat different, but once again their is the root issue that they cannot trusted to follow the labor policy they are supposed to.

I suspect that some people are beggining to feel that as long as the parties do not intend to fundamentally change the economic system from something other than capitalism, their will be no real change and no real reason to vote for these parties. More commonly though, no one has interest in socialist reformists who have shown themselves to almost consistently not carry out socialist reforms.

If capitalism continues to deteriote, then even if social reformists come to power and implement their reforms, the difference will be small and this will encourage growth of the first class of ''disinterested'' mentioned in the above paragraph.

(edit)

The communist parties probably have the MOST need to be specific. Who wants to waste time with nationalistic two stage bueracratic fools likely to persecute the marxists even more brutally than the capitalists, as they often seem to do  (though who knows if such a party would be worse than the usual party today)?

[Dunenewt]

Much as I thought then, at least in the case of the SPD and labor. Both parties that did not follow their policy lines and so people lost interest in them (who wants to vote for an X party that doesn't do X?).

Its not a case of not following their policy lines as 'New' Labour have followed roughly similar policy lines for quite a while now, but rather their policies not being what Labour traditionally 'stand for'.  Labour has evolved, but has reached a level of evolution that many traditional supporters are becoming disenchanted with them, although they are generally, and unfortunately, sticking by a lot of their policies rather than going back on them, such as ID cards.

Also, no-one seems to be distinguishing between civic and ethnic nationalism.  For example, whilst Plaid Cymru and the British National Party are both nationalist, PC is a civic nationalist party, whilst the BNP are an ethnic nationalism  The English Democrats seem to blur the line slightly, being for the devolution of powers to England, whilst some of their policies could be interpreted as being to do with ethnicity, for example cutting back on translation services, but I think this has been over hyped by certain people, and by no means do they seem like a racist party like the BNP.

[Sneakgab]

Well, basically what I had in mind was labor parties not following pro-labor policies (by which I mean policies in assistance of the working and poor. Basically social reforms), whether or not they claimed their policies to actually be pro-labor (as they should be if their names are to hold true).

You know what I mean. :P

''Labour has evolved''

That usually means class-collaboration and compromise, and not supporting the working class, poor, e.t.c. Pretty much what I mean when I speak of them losing support because they are not doing what their names suggest they should be.

[Dunenewt]

Ah I see what you were trying to say now.  You're right, and I think that's why the British National Party are picking up votes, because they are trying to appeal to the white lower class people that have felt let down by Labour.

[Anathema]

Interesting analyses Edric. A lot more interesting then most of the coverage on TV in fact.

Point of critique:

The far-right picked up a few seats. They came second in the Netherlands with 4 seats,

Wilders' party is the second largest, true. But if we're talking about wich European group won in the Netherlands, the answer would be the Liberals followed by the Conservatives. This is because we have two parties with both 3 seats and who are both part of the Liberal fraction (whereas our christian-democrats/conservatives have 5 and Wilders 4)

I don't know about the other socialist/communist parties in Europe, but ours (Socialistische Partij) is vehemently anti-EU. They're much more of a leftist/populist party than a socialist party in my opinion, but I guess the same applies to most others in Europe.

With the conservative victory it sadly seems like that unsufferable twit Barosso will get to keep his job.

[Dunenewt]

The Socialist Labour party in the UK is anti EU too.

[Sneakgab]

I suppose it also makes sense for a socialist party to be anti-EU; the EU may facilitate outsourcing and/or the importing of cheap immigrant labor which both increases the exploitation of the workers (in the sense of reducing wages) and thusly divides the workers against one another. In other words, this internationalism of the EU may ironically set workers of different nationalities against one another.

Perhaps a pro-EU attitude is in fact NOT fitting for a socialist party now that I think about it. Such parties should be concerned with international solidarity of the working class, but that has nothing to do with the internationalism of the EU, which may only benefit the bourgeois class. Hmmm, I don't normally make oversights like that (seems I was absent-mind)...

Of course, ultimately, it depends on what the effects of the EU are more specifically. Most likely, they are about unrestricted trade, setting up shop wherever you like and the ''free movement'' of labor (put in inverted brackets, because whether being forced to go to another country for a living wage is ''free'' is debatable).

''I don't know about the other socialist/communist parties in Europe, but ours (Socialistische Partij) is vehemently anti-EU. They're much more of a leftist/populist party than a socialist party in my opinion, but I guess the same applies to most others in Europe.''

That's true, most parties whose name involve the word socialist normally have no relation to socialism in general (unless you consider the ultimate goal of their reformism to be socialism via gradual change. However, for most such parties it is more likely their ultimate goal is simply a ''freindlier'' capitalism with free healthcare, decent pensions, e.t.c as opposed to a fundamental change of the current economic system to that of socialism)

[Anathema]

Our socialist party was definitely socialist in the classic sense - most of the members during their foundation where Maoists, and in the beginning it was partly funded by Chinese money (I'm not saying Mao's rule was socialist, just that they thought it was at the time - they turned 180 degrees in that regard)

Nowadays they emphasise that they're not against entepreneurship at all - they just want to strip shareholders of most influence in their respective companies, raise corporate taxes, nationalize banks etc.

On the other hand, one of the reasons they're against the EU is because they're against freedom of movement - they don't want Polish workers coming over here who are content with earning less then their Dutch competitors.