SPIRE: School of Politics, International Relations and Philosophy @ Keele University

Written by Professor Andrew Dobson

How can Politics lecturers be objective if they support a particular political party? This is a question that we are often asked – particularly by parents and guardians on Open Days. And I’ve asked myself the question a number of times, because I’ve been a member of the Green Party for a few years and wrote the Party’s General Election Manifesto this year. It’s hard to be more committed to a Party’s politics than that. (Although we must also remember our recently-retired American politics expert, Mike Tappin, who spent five years as a Labour Euro MP).


One response is to resist the premise of the question and ask: should we be objective when we teach? There is a school of thought which suggests that students respect lecturers much more when they (the lecturers) show their true colours rather than hide behind a pseudo-balanced façade. And most lecturers know that ‘taking a stance’ can be a useful pedagogic tool when challenging students into a response.


I don’t think this works as an argument – or at least not beyond the occasional tactical use of ‘stance-taking’. If all we did was promulgate the party line we’d be no different to a politician in the House of Commons or on BBC TV’s Question Time. Students rightly expect something different – a fuller, more balanced, more rounded account and analysis of the political options.


So the question remains: will students get this fuller and more rounded analysis from a politically-committed lecturer? To some degree the answer depends on the lecturer, but there’s nothing in principle that stops her or him from giving a balanced view. In fact I’d go further and say that the committed lecturer is in one of the best positions to do so.

This is because you only get to a committed view if you’ve carefully considered all the alternatives. In particular this involves confronting the very best arguments that ‘the opposition’ can put up. It’s a kind of dialectical process, and the strongest conclusion is the one reached after confronting the strongest arguments. Then it’s just a question of being honest in the classroom and making sure that every argument is given a fair run for its money.

We also have to remember that lecturers have authority over students in a way that politicians don't. Politicians are trying to persuade us that their view and only their view is correct whereas lecturers have to respect that students may have a different point of view to their own. Students look to lecturers as figures in authority wither expert knowledge, which puts a special obligation on us to respect views that are opposed to our own.


And, of course it helps to have a skeptical frame of mind (not the same as a cynical one). There’s no political position that’s unassailable, and it always helps to be on the lookout for flaws and weak spots in one’s own position. I think that ethos is the nearest we can get to objectivity in teaching.

Perhaps that’s the main difference between lecturing and electioneering: when you’re electioneering you hope you won’t be asked any hard questions, and when you’re lecturing you hope you will be. And the beauty of it is dealing with the hard questions in the seminar room or the lecture hall makes it easier to handle the ones thrown at you in election hustings.

By Dr. Helen Parr


A Liberal-Conservative coalition government is an unprecedented step in British politics. As Professor Andrew Gamble pointed out in his talk at Keele last week, there has never previously been a formal coalition government in peacetime in Britain: 1918-22 was predominantly the Conservatives supporting Liberal Prime Minister Lloyd George; 1931 was a Conservative government with a few Labour and Liberal ministers and 1974 saw a minority Labour government with a further general election called later that year. What’s more, the Liberal Democrats share a heritage predominantly with the British left. It was disquiet with the Labour party of the 1970s and early 1980s that led to the formation of the Social Democratic Party in 1981, the merger of which with the Liberals later in that decade created the modern Liberal Democrats. The current coalition thus owes everything to the visions of David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Cameron wanted to be Prime Minister, of course, but he also sought to consolidate his own modernisation of the Conservative party. Clegg, once it became apparent the scale of the concessions the Conservatives were willing to make, saw his opportunity to press for historic Liberal Democrat goals: greater civil and individual liberty, alongside parliamentary and electoral reform.


So, will it work? Well, it depends upon what one wishes it to do. But, for it genuinely to usher in a new era of British politics, then it must succeed in introducing constitutional reform. Liberal Democrats wary of the coalition may be mollified by advances in civil liberties, and attracted by Vince Cable’s potential influence in banking reform, but they are unlikely to tolerate the deal for a longer period unless there is significant advance in this area. There are promising signs. The coalition agreement promises to bring forward the Wright Committee recommendations in full. These recommendations would give more power to parliament over the conduct and management of parliamentary business and scrutiny of legislation. It also heralds a committee to examine reform of the House of Lords, with the aim to establishing a mainly or fully elected second chamber, on the basis of PR. The introduction of a fixed term parliament further helps to diminish the power of the executive; although the provision that parliament can only be dissolved upon a vote of 55% of the House appears to make it harder to hold the government to account through a no confidence motion, trampling over the former convention that 50% plus one was enough to topple a government.


It is over electoral reform, however, where the radical possibilities of the coalition will be tested most severely. The Lib Dem election manifesto pledged to introduce proportional representation via the Single Transferable Vote. The coalition agreement promises to hold a referendum on whether to introduce not STV, but the Alternative Vote. The Alternative Vote is more similar to the existing system of first past the post: one single member is elected per constituency, but voters are allowed to rank their preferences. If there is no majority for a first preference candidate, second and subsequent preferences from the losing candidate(s) are re-allocated until a majority is reached. AV therefore ensures that all MPs have a majority of constituents favouring them, but it is not proportional. A third or minor party will not win seats based upon their share of the vote, but will have to compete, as they currently do, for outright victory.




In other words, if the referendum agrees to change the voting system – and how the referendum will be conducted will be a major area for debate – the Lib Dems will still face a tremendous difficulty at the 2015 election, assuming that the government makes it that far. AV could be seen as a first step towards more radical reform: but how will this be attained? By 2015, the Lib Dems will most likely have to compete against the Conservatives and Labour in a voting system no more likely to favour them than the current one. Depending then upon the positions of Conservatives and Labour towards further electoral reform – and Labour may come out in favour of proportional representation – the Lib Dems could find themselves torn. How this will play out is extremely difficult to foresee, but also very important for the Lib Dems. If this central reform does not manifest, the Lib Dems could find themselves crushed.