Time to mimic the new Sark Lark?

In the days when the Labour government was sceptical about House of Lords reform (now it's not sceptical, it's just sloooow), the late Lord Williams of Mostyn routinely did a sterling job of defending the indefensible. One of his favourite lines of argument was that in America all sorts of public officials - including judges but also even less probable office-holders - are elected. But the fact that most other countries failed to follow that example didn't mean they were less democratic - not every single public position needs to be elected in a democracy, he would say. True enough. But in a parliamentary democracy, it is surely rather essential for the entirety of parliament to be elected.

You can read my new article on the urgent need for Lords reform here. My (slightly mischievous) starting-point is that Britain could learn a thing or two about democracy from Sark!

Also still available to read is another article I wrote nine months ago about the predicament of the Labour party. I thought for a little while in the autumn that the second 'Brown bounce' might have rendered my central conclusion questionable, but not anymore!

What is the point of PR for the London Assembly?

On the day Boris Johnson becomes master of all he surveys, it's worth pondering this point. The principal rationale for proportional representation is 'majority rule', ie. no more compulsory ID cards imposed by New Labour on the basis of 35% of the popular vote, and no more unfettered Thatcherism on 42% of the vote. But how is the London voting system supposed to achieve that objective? The key problem is that for the only substantive decision the London assembly is permitted to take - to reject or amend the Mayor's budget - a two-thirds majority is required. This means the Mayor can be elected on a minority vote (quite probable on the supplementary vote system, since in practice most second preference votes are non-transferable) and then exercise total control provided that his party has a blocking minority in the assembly, which only requires 33% of the vote. All in all, the practical effect of 'electoral reform' in London looks suspiciously similar to first-past-the-post to me.