Portfolio Allocation and Policy Compromises: How and Why the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats Formed a Coalition Government

The question of ‘who gets what?’ is one of the most interesting issues in coalition politics. Research on portfolio allocation has thus far produced some clear‐cut empirical findings: coalition parties receive ministerial posts in close proportion to the number of parliamentary seats they win. This article poses two simple questions: Why did the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats agree to form a coalition government and, secondly, did the process of portfolio allocation in the United Kingdom in 2010 reflect standard patterns of cabinet composition in modern democracies? In order to answer these questions, a content analysis of election manifestos is applied in this article in order to estimate the policy positions of the parties represented in the House of Commons. The results show that a coalition between the Tories and Lib Dems was indeed the optimal solution in the British coalition game in 2010. When applying the portfolio allocation model, it turns out that the Conservatives fulfilled the criteria of a ‘strong party’, implying that the Tories occupied the key position in the coalition game. On account of this pivotal role, they were ultimately able to capture the most important ministries in the new coalition government.     

Forecasting the 2010 general election using aggregate local election data

The paper presents a revised method for estimating national vote shares using aggregate data from local government by-elections. The model was originally developed to forecast the annual outcome of local elections but was adapted in time to provide an accurate forecast of Labour’s landslide victory at the 1997 general election. However, over the past decade the changing pattern of party competition which has seen parties becoming more selective about which elections to contest has led to more elections being excluded from the modelling because they failed to meet the exacting criteria that all three major parties, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats, had contested both the by-election and the previous main election, normally held in May. Relaxing these criteria, although increasing the number of available cases would adversely affect the forecast, over- or under-estimating party votes. Instead, the revised method overcomes the problem of differential competition by estimating vote shares for parties that contest one but not both elections. A further innovation is the calculation of a weighted moving quarterly average which takes account of the number of days elapsed between the by-election date and the date of forecast. Using the new method we provide estimates for likely party shares for the 2010 general election.     

英国法下海盗行为及海盗赎金的评析与最新发展

在向海盗支付大笔赎金后,被海盗劫持的船舶、货物和船员通常会得到释放。支付赎金似乎成为当前解决海盗劫持最不得已却最有效的手段。因此,有关海盗赎金的法律性质也就日渐成为国际社会,特别是船东、货主和保险人关注的焦点。作为一个航运法律强国,英国显然在认定海盗行为和海盗赎金的法律性质上走在了海运国家的前列。因此,了解英国保险法下对海盗行为及海盗赎金的认定对于中国航运法律与实务大有裨益。根据英国上诉法院在2011年初对the“Masefield v．Amlin”案的二审判决,对包括海盗赎金的合法性和公共政策,在海盗劫持下的财产是否构成全损,以及是否可以将海盗赎金认定为共同海损抑或是施救费用等问题加以分析和阐述。