The Scotsman reports that Alex Salmond has suggested that, by initiating a likely U-turn on the clash of dates between the 2015 Holyrood and Westminster elections, Michael Moore has effectively "conceded" that it is also wrong to hold the AV referendum on the same day as next year's Holyrood poll. In terms of logical consistency, Mr Salmond is of course right, but are the Liberal Democrats ready to admit that to themselves yet? If they agree to a decoupling of next year's polling dates, the whole purpose of their ploy will have been defeated. My guess is that Michael Moore hopes that, if he does end up feeling obliged to devolve control of election dates to Holyrood, he can conveniently delay the transfer of power until well after next May.
But the irony is that, as things stand, the SNP government don't actually need any new powers to thwart the Lib Dems' plan. Labour have been completely supportive of the arguments against holding both the election and the referendum on May 5th - and between them, the SNP and Labour hold some 72% of the seats in the Scottish Parliament. As we all now know due to an issue that has been very topical in recent weeks, under the Scotland Act a two-thirds majority is sufficient to trigger an early dissolution of parliament. I suggested not too long ago that this rule was a touch superfluous, given that a dissolution can also be triggered simply by a short period of time elapsing after a no-confidence motion has been passed without a new government being formed. That, I felt sure, was the much more plausible sequence of events, thus ensuring that the two-thirds rule would never be activated in practice. But, remarkably, we seem to have stumbled on one of the rare circumstances where there might just be a use for it.
Whether the SNP and Labour's common cause on this subject really runs deep enough for them to vote together for an early election (probably in March or April) is of course a very big 'if' - as the two main contenders for power they will be reading the runes and seeking to maximise their own advantage. On the face of it, they're unlikely to be able to agree on a preferred election date for that reason alone. But if by any chance they can, the coalition government's embarrassment will be a sight to behold.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?
Michael Moore writes a letter to Alex Salmond setting out options for a U-turn on the crazy plan in the coalition agreement to hold the 2015 Westminster general election on the same day as the long-scheduled Holyrood poll. Simultaneously, his party leader is introducing the idea of completely unnecessarily holding the AV referendum on the same day as next year's Holyrood poll. Yep, that makes perfect sense.
Meanwhile, Iain Dale says that the likes of his old friend David Davis who are complaining about the timing of the referendum "need to get a life". (Grim news, Iain - the 'sourfaced 15-year-old in a chatroom' persona really isn't a winner.) He also reminds us that referenda are frequently held in conjunction with other elections in countries like the US and New Zealand, adding "I'm not sure how they can argue that we should be any different". Well, if Dale thinks that "what most other countries do" is an unanswerable argument in favour of anything, clearly he should "get a life" and drop his objections to PR immediately. More substantively, while I'm not an expert on New Zealand elections, I'd certainly suggest that the experience in the US provides an overwhelmingly compelling argument for why, indeed, we should be different. Where does Dale think the endless queues round the block, and the need for elaborate electronic counting methods that have led to such controversy in that country come from? Quite simply from too many different elections/referenda held on the same day, with separate instructions that voters need to process for each ballot.
However, like Jeff I'm inclined to think that the particular combination of ballots being proposed for next May needn't necessarily lead to 2007-style confusion, simply because the instructions for the AV referendum will be relatively straightforward. But it doesn't follow that there is no problem and that we should simply accept the date. The real issue is the impact on the Scottish Parliament campaign. The TV coverage will be completely swamped by 'national' politicians talking about a 'national' issue, and the result could well be that the Scottish campaign has a profile roughly equivalent to that enjoyed (or rather suffered) by the Scottish dimension of the general election campaign we've just had. How can that possibly be in the interests of the democratic process?
Meanwhile, Iain Dale says that the likes of his old friend David Davis who are complaining about the timing of the referendum "need to get a life". (Grim news, Iain - the 'sourfaced 15-year-old in a chatroom' persona really isn't a winner.) He also reminds us that referenda are frequently held in conjunction with other elections in countries like the US and New Zealand, adding "I'm not sure how they can argue that we should be any different". Well, if Dale thinks that "what most other countries do" is an unanswerable argument in favour of anything, clearly he should "get a life" and drop his objections to PR immediately. More substantively, while I'm not an expert on New Zealand elections, I'd certainly suggest that the experience in the US provides an overwhelmingly compelling argument for why, indeed, we should be different. Where does Dale think the endless queues round the block, and the need for elaborate electronic counting methods that have led to such controversy in that country come from? Quite simply from too many different elections/referenda held on the same day, with separate instructions that voters need to process for each ballot.
However, like Jeff I'm inclined to think that the particular combination of ballots being proposed for next May needn't necessarily lead to 2007-style confusion, simply because the instructions for the AV referendum will be relatively straightforward. But it doesn't follow that there is no problem and that we should simply accept the date. The real issue is the impact on the Scottish Parliament campaign. The TV coverage will be completely swamped by 'national' politicians talking about a 'national' issue, and the result could well be that the Scottish campaign has a profile roughly equivalent to that enjoyed (or rather suffered) by the Scottish dimension of the general election campaign we've just had. How can that possibly be in the interests of the democratic process?
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Iain Dale is the bringer of good news : size doesn't matter
I've just had an illuminating (well, in one sense) exchange with Iain Dale on Twitter. In a blog post this morning, he had set out his reasons for opposing STV (the voting system rather than the TV station) - in a nutshell, that it weakens the constituency link by creating large, multi-member constituencies. So I asked him if he wasn't similarly concerned about the Tory plans to cut the size of the House of Commons, which by definition will dilute the constituency link by increasing the size of constituencies. Somewhat to my astonishment, Dale flatly denied that the link would be diluted "at all", and insisted that only the multi-member v single-member point was of any relevance to the issue. I put it to him that a local councillor fairly obviously has a stronger link to the people he represents than an MP. This was Dale's reply -
"No. You could argue less, as most councillors are in three member wards"
Now, I must say it's somewhat startling to have been called "obtuse" and "desperate" by someone who is boneheadedly trying to hold the line that a politician representing a ward of only a few thousand people somehow has a weaker link to those he represents than a politician representing tens of thousands! The logic of Dale's extraordinary position is that it doesn't matter how large a constituency is, just so long as only one person is representing it. (He doesn't really believe that himself, incidentally, as evidenced by his apologetic aside "and we're only talking 10%", but taken literally that's his position.) Does anyone seriously believe that in a constituency of, say, 150,000 people, you'd receive better representation from one person than you could from three? I suspect Dale is essentially looking at the benefits of the constituency link from the top-down, rather than the bottom-up. It may very well be in the interests of an MP representing a huge constituency to continue to have exclusive "proprietorial rights" over all of his or her constituents, but I struggle to see how that can possibly be in the interests of those constituents.
Dale concluded the exchange by revealing just how fundamentally he misunderstands the nature of STV -
"What I object to are multi mamber constituencies where people vote for a party, not a candidate."
No problem. Under STV, in contrast to many PR systems, electors vote exclusively for candidates and not for political parties. Where it differs from first-past-the-post, however, is that voters have a choice of several different candidates from the same party - and the experience in Ireland shows that, when it really comes down to it, it doesn't make a lot of difference how much the party machines urge voters to rank candidates in a certain order. A particularly objectionable candidate will always be squeezed out - now, just how often does that ever happen under FPTP in an ultra-safe seat? Once in a blue moon. A Tory voter in Buckinghamshire who doesn't like the official Tory candidate has no alternative Tory candidate to turn to. The best feature of all about STV, though, is that a popular candidate dropped or sidelined by a party stands every chance of being elected as an independent, due to the low threshold required for success - so the best-laid plans of the party machines are thwarted at both ends. Again, this happens only very, very occasionally under FPTP.
So I say this to Iain Dale - if you mean what you say about wanting local representatives to be chosen by local people and not by party machines, be true to your convictions. Ditch your irrational support for FPTP, and embrace STV, which does exactly what you claim you want.
"No. You could argue less, as most councillors are in three member wards"
Now, I must say it's somewhat startling to have been called "obtuse" and "desperate" by someone who is boneheadedly trying to hold the line that a politician representing a ward of only a few thousand people somehow has a weaker link to those he represents than a politician representing tens of thousands! The logic of Dale's extraordinary position is that it doesn't matter how large a constituency is, just so long as only one person is representing it. (He doesn't really believe that himself, incidentally, as evidenced by his apologetic aside "and we're only talking 10%", but taken literally that's his position.) Does anyone seriously believe that in a constituency of, say, 150,000 people, you'd receive better representation from one person than you could from three? I suspect Dale is essentially looking at the benefits of the constituency link from the top-down, rather than the bottom-up. It may very well be in the interests of an MP representing a huge constituency to continue to have exclusive "proprietorial rights" over all of his or her constituents, but I struggle to see how that can possibly be in the interests of those constituents.
Dale concluded the exchange by revealing just how fundamentally he misunderstands the nature of STV -
"What I object to are multi mamber constituencies where people vote for a party, not a candidate."
No problem. Under STV, in contrast to many PR systems, electors vote exclusively for candidates and not for political parties. Where it differs from first-past-the-post, however, is that voters have a choice of several different candidates from the same party - and the experience in Ireland shows that, when it really comes down to it, it doesn't make a lot of difference how much the party machines urge voters to rank candidates in a certain order. A particularly objectionable candidate will always be squeezed out - now, just how often does that ever happen under FPTP in an ultra-safe seat? Once in a blue moon. A Tory voter in Buckinghamshire who doesn't like the official Tory candidate has no alternative Tory candidate to turn to. The best feature of all about STV, though, is that a popular candidate dropped or sidelined by a party stands every chance of being elected as an independent, due to the low threshold required for success - so the best-laid plans of the party machines are thwarted at both ends. Again, this happens only very, very occasionally under FPTP.
So I say this to Iain Dale - if you mean what you say about wanting local representatives to be chosen by local people and not by party machines, be true to your convictions. Ditch your irrational support for FPTP, and embrace STV, which does exactly what you claim you want.
Respect agenda, RIP
I must take issue with one or two of the things Jeff has said in relation to the coalition's (frankly outrageous) decision to hold the AV referendum on the same day as the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections next May. Firstly, AV is categorically not a "more proportional voting system". In some circumstances, it might produce a slightly more proportional outcome, in other circumstances a slightly less proportional outcome - that's all totally random chance. AV is every bit as much a non-proportional, majoritarian voting system as the one we currently have. I'll probably still hold my nose and vote for it, though, because it does at least remove one of the other problems thrown up by first-past-the-post - namely the tyranny of having to choose between a tactical vote for a candidate you don't support, and an honest vote for your favoured candidate that might prove catastrophically counter-productive. The classic example is the support for Ralph Nader in 2000 that effectively handed George W Bush the US presidency - under AV, those voters could simply have ranked Nader 1st, Gore 2nd, and all would have been right with the world.
As for the referendum date itself, the problem is not so much that there was insufficient consultation (ie. none at all), it's that the coalition would even contemplate such an unjustifiable move in the first place. The Liberal Democrats have already ridden roughshod over the central findings of the Gould Report by agreeing to schedule the next Westminster general election for the same day as the 2015 Holyrood poll, and now the 2011 election is to be compromised in much the same way. Remember Gould's words? The interests of the voters were at every stage "treated as an afterthought". Funny how history repeats itself with such depressing rapidity. The first sign of a potential electoral advantage for the Liberal Democrats and the integrity of the electoral process is instantly deemed disposable yet again.
Presumably the calculation is that Scottish and Welsh voters are particularly likely to vote for AV, and therefore an especially high turnout in those countries will assist the cause. The price will be that the devolved elections become hopelessly muddled up with a UK-wide issue, with the London parties receiving far more than their fair share of coverage during the campaign period. And what do you want to bet that the broadcasters are already itching to hold a series of ninety-minute UK-wide "Referendum Debates" in the run-up to polling, with perhaps Nick Clegg and David Miliband being pitted against David Cameron and A N Other? Back in April, Lady Smith said one of the problems with the SNP's legal challenge was that it came too late. I suggest they lodge their papers very, very early this time.
As for the referendum date itself, the problem is not so much that there was insufficient consultation (ie. none at all), it's that the coalition would even contemplate such an unjustifiable move in the first place. The Liberal Democrats have already ridden roughshod over the central findings of the Gould Report by agreeing to schedule the next Westminster general election for the same day as the 2015 Holyrood poll, and now the 2011 election is to be compromised in much the same way. Remember Gould's words? The interests of the voters were at every stage "treated as an afterthought". Funny how history repeats itself with such depressing rapidity. The first sign of a potential electoral advantage for the Liberal Democrats and the integrity of the electoral process is instantly deemed disposable yet again.
Presumably the calculation is that Scottish and Welsh voters are particularly likely to vote for AV, and therefore an especially high turnout in those countries will assist the cause. The price will be that the devolved elections become hopelessly muddled up with a UK-wide issue, with the London parties receiving far more than their fair share of coverage during the campaign period. And what do you want to bet that the broadcasters are already itching to hold a series of ninety-minute UK-wide "Referendum Debates" in the run-up to polling, with perhaps Nick Clegg and David Miliband being pitted against David Cameron and A N Other? Back in April, Lady Smith said one of the problems with the SNP's legal challenge was that it came too late. I suggest they lodge their papers very, very early this time.
Time for football to adopt the 'penalty try' principle
It seems fairly obvious that the penalty for any foul play or cheating in sport should at the very least seek to restore the status quo of what would have been the case had the cheating not occurred. A red card and a penalty kick was all very well tonight, but it didn't win Ghana the game, which is what would have happened - with absolute certainty - if Suárez hadn't deliberately stuck his hand out to prevent a goal.
Rugby has a rule for precisely such circumstances, empowering the referee to award a full try rather than just a penalty if he is satisfied a try would definitely have been scored but for the transgression. In football, such a clear-cut scenario would only occur very occasionally - but the events of tonight show that such a rule is nevertheless desperately needed, otherwise there's an obvious incentive for players to cheat in certain circumstances. No handball from Suárez = certain defeat for Uruguay. Handball from Suárez = a chance of victory.
Rugby has a rule for precisely such circumstances, empowering the referee to award a full try rather than just a penalty if he is satisfied a try would definitely have been scored but for the transgression. In football, such a clear-cut scenario would only occur very occasionally - but the events of tonight show that such a rule is nevertheless desperately needed, otherwise there's an obvious incentive for players to cheat in certain circumstances. No handball from Suárez = certain defeat for Uruguay. Handball from Suárez = a chance of victory.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Would a Murray loss send the Mirror homewards tae think again?
On the morning of Andy Murray's date with destiny (or the latest one) it's hard not to be impressed by the Mirror's unashamed desperation in its attempts to recast Andy Murray not merely as a True Brit, but as one of Merrie England's very own sons! In an article entitled 'Flower of England', the paper explains -
"Andy Murray may support "anyone but England" in the football but new research reveals his roots lie south of the border.
As the Scots tennis ace powered into the Wimbledon semi-final, genealogy experts traced his roots to England.
Website TheGenealogist.co.uk has discovered Andy's maternal grandmother was born to English parents from York and Berwick-upon-Tweed."
Hmmm. Would that, by any chance, be the same English granny that Murray has repeatedly said he is so fond of, and referred to at length in a newspaper article to try to defuse the synthetic outrage over "anyone but England" when the likes of the Mirror first started to witter on about it? What astonishing discoveries will this crack team of historical investigators turn up next - that there was a wee bit of a stooshie in Europe between the years 1939 and 1945?
The other obvious question is how the Mirror will react when Nadal extinguishes Murray's dream later today (pessimism keeps me sane). Will they reveal that further research has been urgently carried out, and it transpires that three of Murray's grandparents are, in fact, not English?
"Andy Murray may support "anyone but England" in the football but new research reveals his roots lie south of the border.
As the Scots tennis ace powered into the Wimbledon semi-final, genealogy experts traced his roots to England.
Website TheGenealogist.co.uk has discovered Andy's maternal grandmother was born to English parents from York and Berwick-upon-Tweed."
Hmmm. Would that, by any chance, be the same English granny that Murray has repeatedly said he is so fond of, and referred to at length in a newspaper article to try to defuse the synthetic outrage over "anyone but England" when the likes of the Mirror first started to witter on about it? What astonishing discoveries will this crack team of historical investigators turn up next - that there was a wee bit of a stooshie in Europe between the years 1939 and 1945?
The other obvious question is how the Mirror will react when Nadal extinguishes Murray's dream later today (pessimism keeps me sane). Will they reveal that further research has been urgently carried out, and it transpires that three of Murray's grandparents are, in fact, not English?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Did they share, or shaft?
Well done to Liberal Burblings for pointing out an amazing historical fact that I kind-of-knew but had never really crystallised in my mind - that Winston Churchill served two terms as Prime Minister without ever receiving a proper popular mandate. He in fact fought three general elections as Tory leader and on each and every occasion was defeated in the popular vote by Labour. His first term of office during wartime was made possible by the Tory majority he inherited from Chamberlain (and indeed which Chamberlain had earlier inherited from Baldwin), while he had the quirks of the electoral system to thank for his 'win' in the 1951 election.
Does any of this detract from the fact that Churchill was arguably Britain's most popular ever Prime Minister? Of course not. Such apparent contradictions are part and parcel of a parliamentary system in which the people elect a parliament, and the majority in parliament chooses the Prime Minister. Come to think of it, it's quite surprising that Labour didn't make more of the Churchill precedent when Gordon Brown was being taunted for being 'unelected', and when Cameron was cooking up his crazy (and thankfully now quietly dropped) plan to legislate to ensure that Prime Ministers cannot be removed mid-term without triggering an election.
By all means, if people want an elected executive, let's have one. But until that point, let's stop acting like we already have one when we don't. And, yes, I'm thinking of those 'Prime Ministerial Debates' that were no such thing. At the very least, we should have been informed in advance that the debates were going to function like the group stage of the Champions' League - ie. whoever finished third dropped down to a lower-tier competition and was then competing to become Deputy Prime Minister instead. Or maybe it was more like the notorious Robert Kilroy-Silk gameshow Shafted, in the sense that any two of the contestants could choose to gang up together and 'shaft' the other one. Either way - those debates didn't do what they said on the tin.
Does any of this detract from the fact that Churchill was arguably Britain's most popular ever Prime Minister? Of course not. Such apparent contradictions are part and parcel of a parliamentary system in which the people elect a parliament, and the majority in parliament chooses the Prime Minister. Come to think of it, it's quite surprising that Labour didn't make more of the Churchill precedent when Gordon Brown was being taunted for being 'unelected', and when Cameron was cooking up his crazy (and thankfully now quietly dropped) plan to legislate to ensure that Prime Ministers cannot be removed mid-term without triggering an election.
By all means, if people want an elected executive, let's have one. But until that point, let's stop acting like we already have one when we don't. And, yes, I'm thinking of those 'Prime Ministerial Debates' that were no such thing. At the very least, we should have been informed in advance that the debates were going to function like the group stage of the Champions' League - ie. whoever finished third dropped down to a lower-tier competition and was then competing to become Deputy Prime Minister instead. Or maybe it was more like the notorious Robert Kilroy-Silk gameshow Shafted, in the sense that any two of the contestants could choose to gang up together and 'shaft' the other one. Either way - those debates didn't do what they said on the tin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)